Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts

Let Them Eat MAGA Hats

Lara Trump, who is Donald Trump's daughter-in-law by way of marriage to his deplorable son Eric, had this shit to say to the federal workers who aren't getting paid as a result of her father-in-law's shutdown tantrum because Nancy Pelosi refuses to give him funding for his monument to nativist white supremacy:

We get that this is unfair to you, but this is so much bigger than any one person. It is a little bit of pain, but it's going to be for the future of our country and their children and their grandchildren and generations after that will thank them for their sacrifice right now.
1. Fuck you.

2. Not getting paid for working people who depend on their salaries is not "a little bit of pain." It's a lot of pain.

3. This shit is not happening "for the future of our country." It's for a bullshit wall that is being justified with lies and bigotry.

4. It's not a "sacrifice" if you're being forced to do it against your will.

5. I'm so sure kids will be lining up to thank their parents for that time they didn't get the shoes they needed because the bad man in Washington refused to give mommy her paycheck.

6. Conservatives really need to stop pretending like they give a single fuck about the welfare of federal workers when explicitly advocating reducing the size of the federal government is central to the Republican platform.

7. Fuck you.

Open Wide...

Matt Damon, What Happened to You?

[Content Note: Privilege.]

Matt Damon has spent the past few years fading from a problematic fave to a problem.

His latest fuckery is waxing impressed about how John Krasinski overcame the "unfair burden" of having starred for many years on a hit TV show. Yes, really.

"Playing a character on a TV show for so long, John had this unfair burden he had to smash through, and that's been done now, clearly."

That is a real quote from a real article in the world.

Goddddddddddd I'm so glad I never had the unfair burden of being a straight white thin cis man who had to make millions of dollars toiling away at one of my first jobs in my chosen occupation! CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE???

image of me as a toddler, sitting in my grandmother's kitchen in pink footie pajamas with my legs crossed, scowling
My face, now and forever. Apparently.

Open Wide...

Life Preservers in a Toxic Sea

[Content Note: Patriarchy; white supremacy; rape culture; references to drowning.]

image of a turbulent sea beneath a misty sky
[Image via Pixabay.]

I am a strong swimmer.

I swim a mile at least three or four times a week. Length after length, back and forth, sometimes sharing a lane with other swimmers, the pool so full of people that it churns like the sea.

No matter how placid or turbulent the water, even when the surface roils with the movement of other swimmers and I get a mouthful of water when I expected air, I never feel as though I'm drowning.

The only thing that threatens to drown me is the vast sea of seeping venom, oozed by the corrupt and abusive people who are running this nation.

Running it from the halls of government, in federal buildings and private clubs. Running it from behind desks in newsrooms, and from ivory towers in academia. Running it from golf courses and locker rooms. Running it from statehouses, courthouses, warehouses, farmhouses, hen houses, outhouses, and dog houses.

So many men. White men, mostly — with their tokens, their pets, their enablers. Exceptional Women and the bootstrapping purveyors of respectability politics. The fools who believe that proximity to sadistic white men will keep them safe.

Every day, I wake up full of steely resolve, prepared to once again resist as mightily as I can, in all the ways that I can. I take my space among the rest of the resisters, who speak or march or donate or volunteer or write or make calls or lash themselves to fixed barriers and refuse to be easily removed.

And every day, I begin to drown. I take air from the people who swim at my side, fighting, and I give air back to them in turn. We fill each other's lungs with air, as the corrupt and abusive people who are running this nation try to drown us in the sea of their relentless malice.

Wave after wave of chaos, of harm. Of corruption and abuse and lies. Of silencing and threatening and attacking and caging. Of marginalizing and othering and dehumanizing and exploiting and thieving and raping and bombing and betraying.

I tread water in this churning sea, and I struggle to swim. I struggle to breathe, like everyone floating in the sea beside me.

We act as each other's life preservers.

I think about what those words mean, their literal meaning. We preserve each other's lives.

We preserve each other's lives, as vile men try to destroy them. To rescind our rights, to reject our agency, to ignore our consent. To step on our necks, to redistribute our treasure to their own pockets, to deny us livable wages, affordable housing, lifesaving healthcare. To neglect the safety of infrastructure in our communities. To kill us with poisons in the air and water and food and walls. To starve us, to hurt us, to paralyze us with fear, to refuse us opportunities to thrive or even moments of joy.

To try to make us agree with their damnable pretense that we are inferior; that there is something inherently better about white men.

I use the last of my precious breath to exhale a curdled sigh of contempt. For we know, we know, that it isn't true.

If it were, they wouldn't need to mount such a cruel and comprehensive effort to convince us otherwise. To drown us in their sea of bile.

I don't know if we are going to win this fight, but I am going to keep swimming. For as long as I can.

And I hope that while they busily piss into their toxic sea, they continue to underestimate how strong a swimmer I am. How willing we are to keep swimming; to be each other's life preservers.

They don't know yet that we will keep coming, length after length, back and forth, but they will.

They don't understand yet that I have bigger ambitions than "draining the swamp." I'm fixing to drain the entire sea.

Open Wide...

What Did I Just Read?

[Content Note: Moving GIF at link] Ben Smith at BuzzFeed: I Helped Create Insider Political Journalism. Now It's Time for It to Go Away.

Let me just say as a person whose life was turned upside-down for awhile partially as a result of the hot-take fast-take who-cares insider political journalism of the aughts, there was never a time when it should have existed.

Also:


If you can't view the image embedded in the tweet, it's a screenshot of the final two paragraphs of the piece, which read:
And yet, perhaps there's reason to be nostalgic for that amoral, tactical coverage of American politics. When I spoke the other day to one of the key figures of the old school, who declined to be quoted by name, he sounded a little wistful:

"You almost long for the days when it was a game."
Following my tweet, Eastsidekate and I had the following exchange (which I'm sharing with her permission):


It must be tough to have a case of the sads about Donald Trump making it so obvious that your immorality has consequences.

Open Wide...

Today in Men Who Can't Resist Proving the Point

[Content Note: Sexism; racism.]


"All this is by way of saying to women: I'm on your side." No, you really fucking aren't, bub.

Not for nothing, but a white man who publicly insists on telling the world that he "recoils" at women calling for women to be employed in prominent roles across all industries is pretty much making the case for us that we need women from marginalized communities who have a commitment to intersectional leadership to fill leadership roles, because white men keep showing us that they can't be trusted to treat us as their equals.

Or even acknowledge that we have spent millenia being denied that equality. Or care about it, beyond grudgingly "conceding" our complaint.

Open Wide...

We Resist: Day 452

a black bar with the word RESIST in white text

One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures (plus the occasional non-Republican who obliges us to resist their nonsense, too, like we don't have enough to worry about) is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.

So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.

Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.

* * *

Earlier today by me: F#@k James Comey, Part Two and On Trump's Syria Strike and An Observation.

Here are some more things in the news today...

[Content Note: Anti-Blackness; white supremacy] Damien Gayle at the Guardian: Arrest of Two Black Men at Starbucks for 'Trespassing' Sparks Protests.
About two dozen chanting protesters have entered a Philadelphia Starbucks where two black men were arrested after store employees called 911 to say the men were trespassing [despite the fact that the men were just waiting to meet a friend there, like countless people do in Starbucks franchises all over the world every damn day—Liss].

The protesters moved to the front counter shortly after 7 am on Monday and chanted "Starbucks coffee is anti-black" and "We are gonna shut you down."

...The arrests on Thursday were captured on video and circulated widely on social media. The footage shows police officers confronting two men seated at a table, before handcuffing and arresting them. Their friend, who is white, arrives just as the pair are being led outside.

Melissa DePino captured the incident on video and posted it on Twitter. She wrote: "The police were called because these men hadn't ordered anything. They were waiting for a friend to show up, who did as they were taken out in handcuffs for doing nothing. All the other white ppl are wondering why it's never happened to us when we do the same thing."

The police commissioner, Richard Ross, said officers went to the coffee shop after Starbucks employee reported the men were trespassing. Officers were told the men had entered and asked to use the toilet, but were refused because they had not bought anything. They then refused to leave. Ross, who is black, insisted that his officers "did absolutely nothing wrong."

Police have not released the names of the men. A spokesman for the district attorney's office said the two were released "because of lack of evidence" that a crime had been committed, but declined to comment further, citing a police investigation.

I have seen an awful lot of people arguing in defense of both the police and the Starbucks employee who called them, because the men were asked to leave, so neither the police nor the employee had any choice once they refused. That is bullshit. And it is bullshit that ignores the men probably never would have been asked to leave in the first place if they'd been white, and bullshit that ignores there was still no reason to call the police when they wouldn't leave as long as they weren't hurting anyone, and bullshit that ignores the police were there to protect property not people, including and especially the people they were arresting, which is not the job the police insist to us they do (despite all evidence to the contrary).

And one of the things that businesses like Starbucks need to be drilling into their employees' heads is that Black people — and brown people, and disabled people — are disproportionately likely to have fatal interactions with police, so the police should be called only if people, and especially people of color and/or disabled people, are causing some sort of serious problem. And "taking up a table for awhile without buying anything" isn't actually a serious problem.

For fuck's sake.

* * *

Devlin Barrett at the Washington Post: Trump Wants to Review Material Seized from Personal Lawyer Before Federal Investigators. "[Donald] Trump asked a federal judge Sunday night to allow him to review documents that FBI agents seized from the office of his longtime lawyer before criminal investigators have a chance to see the material. The request underscores the high stakes in an ongoing legal fight in federal court in New York, where Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is also fighting to get a chance to review material seized as part of a criminal investigation of his business dealings." Authoritarianism watch, part wev in an endless series.

Anita Kumar at McClatchy: Trump Businesses Made Millions off Republican Groups and Federal Agencies, Report Says. "[Donald] Trump's U.S. businesses have received at least $15.1 million in revenue from political groups and federal agencies since 2015, according to a new report to be released Monday. The money went to Trump's airplanes, hotels, golf courses, even a bottled water company during the presidential campaign and the first 15 months of his presidency, according to a compilation of known records of the spending by Public Citizen obtained by McClatchy. ...The total amount is likely to be much more. There is no single place to find out how much the administration is spending at Trump businesses, though federal agencies have started to disclose some records in response to public record requests. ...By comparison, in 2013 and 2014, political spending at his properties was less than $20,000." Fucking grifter.

Damian Paletta at the Washington Post: Trump Contradicts His Treasury Department, Accuses China and Russia of Currency Cheating. "Trump on Monday accused China and Russia of improperly manipulating their currencies in a way that gives them unfair trade advantages. 'Russia and China are playing the Currency Devaluation game as the U.S. keeps raising interest rates. Not acceptable!' the president wrote on Twitter. The accusation, delivered without any evidence or corroboration, directly contradicts a report issued Friday by Trump's Treasury Department, which did not accuse either country of artificially lowering the value of its currency. Instead, the report found that China's currency had recently moved in a direction that should benefit U.S. exporters." JFC.

screen cap of a tweet authored by @nycsouthpaw responding to a tweet published by Sarah Huckabee Sanders, showing a photo of the Situation Room and claiming to be on the night of the Syrian strike decision; nycsouthpaw has responded: 'This photo wasn’t taken last night. Pence was in Peru.'

Jon Swaine at the Guardian: Trump's Press Secretary Issues Clarification After Posting Misleading Photo. "Donald Trump's press secretary issued a begrudging clarification on Sunday after being accused of posting a misleading photograph of the president online. Sarah Sanders was criticised for a tweet on Saturday that appeared to show Trump busily directing missile strikes against Syria from the White House situation room, with Vice-President Mike Pence at his right hand. 'Last night the President put our adversaries on notice: when he draws a red line he enforces it,' Sanders wrote as a caption. ...Sanders on Sunday responded with a new installment from the Trump administration's series of prickly statements in which an inaccurate remark is simultaneously defended and amended. It said: 'As I said, the President put our adversaries on notice that he enforces red lines with the strike on Syria Friday night. The photo was taken Thursday in the Situation Room during Syria briefing.'" Sure.

* * *

[CN: White supremacy] Alice Ollstein at TPM: Interior Officials Have History of Hostility to Native Concerns. "A scathing Inspector General's report released last week is raising new questions about last summer's mass reassignment of Interior Department (DOI) employees that disproportionately affected Native Americans. Now, current and former members of Congress and former department officials tell TPM that two top Trump political appointees at the department — at least one of whom played a key role in the reassignments — have long been hostile to Native concerns. Both officials, Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt, the department's second in command, and Associate Deputy Secretary Jim Cason, served in top DOI posts during the George W. Bush administration, at a time of intense conflict between the agency and Native American tribes."

[CN: Authoritarianism; white supremacy] Natasha Geiling at ThinkProgress: These States Want to Make Planning a Pipeline Protest a Crime.
As pipeline protests continue to delay and, sometimes, stop energy projects in their tracks, the fossil fuel industry and Republican lawmakers are looking for new ways to clamp down on environmental protest.

In the last few years, state lawmakers across the country have proposed bills that would impose harsh penalties on environmental protest, particularly protests aimed at delaying pipeline construction or shutting down existing pipeline infrastructure. In energy-rich states like Oklahoma and North Dakota, lawmakers have successfully passed bills prohibiting certain kinds of protest, from protests that block highways or traffic to protests that trespass onto property containing energy infrastructure.

But a new crop of bills proposed in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota — all states with controversial pipeline projects currently under consideration — take the criminalization of protest one step further.

If passed, the bills would make it illegal to conspire to protest in certain instances, like when a protest would require trespass or some other kind of civil disobedience. This means the act of simply planning a protest that includes a civil disobedience component, like trespass — regardless of whether or not you actually protest — would become illegal.
This is just authoritarianism run amok, and further evidence of what I say all the time: Donald Trump is not an anomaly of Republican politics, but its endgame.

[CN: White supremacy] Dan Balz and Scott Clement at the Washington Post: Poll: Democrats' Advantage in Midterm Election Support Is Shrinking. "Democrats hold an advantage ahead of the midterm elections, but a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that edge has narrowed since January, a signal to party leaders and strategists that they could be premature in anticipating a huge wave of victories in November." And why? WHITE PEOPLE VOTING TO PROTECT WHITE PRIVILEGE.


And finally...

[CN: Climate change; video may autoplay at link] Allan Adamson at Tech Times: Atlantic Ocean Current Slowing Down Due to Global Warming: Here's What Could Happen. "Findings of two new studies have revealed that the Atlantic ocean current has significantly slowed down and is currently at its slowest pace in 1,600 years. The researchers attribute the slowing down of the current known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation to global warming. ...The so-called 'conveyor belt of the ocean' plays an important role in regulating global temperatures and the phenomenon is feared to have serious consequences. AMOC transports heat around the globe and if this movement stops, the heat would not be distributed."

That could lead to: More severe African droughts; more extreme winters and summers in Europe and North America; more severe storms in Europe; a faster rise in sea levels of the U.S. East Coast; fisheries devastated by warming waters, impacting jobs and creating food scarcity; and the ocean becoming "less effective at absorbing carbon dioxide [which] can lead to higher quantities of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere worsening global warming." Fuck.

What have you been reading that we need to resist today?

Open Wide...

The Superior People, So They Claim

[Content Note: White/male/Christian supremacy; nativism; privilege.]


The Trump administration is truly, truly, privilege in action. (And the ultimate example of what "identity politics" really looks like.) It's just aggressive mediocrity, empowered exclusively by unearned privilege.

And I'm fucking sick of looking at it.

Open Wide...

Another White Man Who Isn't Troubled Enough to Be Called a Terrorist

[Content Note: Bombing; terrorism; white male privilege.]

Last night, law enforcement discovered a 25-minute taped confession left behind by Austin bomber Mark Conditt. In the video recorded on his phone, he described each bomb in detail, as well as the differences between them.

Conditt started with package bombs left at residences; moved on to a roadside bomb with a tripwire; then to package delivery via a professional delivery service. The effect of his constantly shifting M.O. was to doubly terrorize a community, who were (1) fearful of the explosives themselves; and (2) fearful of not knowing what iteration of explosive they may encounter next.

Conditt killed two people and wounded five more. He would have kept up his spree of terror and injury and murder if he had not been stopped.

And yet.

Here is how interim Austin Police Chief Brian Manley described Conditt after watching the recording last night: "He does not at all mention anything about terrorism nor does he mention anything about hate. But instead it is the outcry of a very challenged young man talking about challenges in his personal life that led him to this point."

Oh.


That is neither humor nor hyperbole. I am angry that I have spent nearly 14 years as a public feminist activist with everything I've done being audited by critics and found to be nefarious, sinister. Never do they afford me the space to just be an average, earnest person who really likes and cares about other people and also makes mistakes; it's always that I'm a manipulative, Machiavellian monster with ulterior motives who hurts people for fun.

See also: Every other woman with a public career, including and especially the last Democratic presidential nominee.

And I am keenly aware that marginalized men, especially men of color, are not afforded anything like the aggressively undeserved good faith given to Mark Conditt, either. There is no way on this planet or any other that United States law enforcement would have expressed anything resembling empathy or sympathy for a Black man or a Muslim man who terrorized an American city with bombs.

There is no way that any person who isn't a cishet white man would have been allowed to define whether they were a terrorist based on what they said in their videotaped confession.

Our voices don't matter that much when we're alive and haven't killed anyone. We are rarely afforded the gift of being able to define ourselves.

But THIS FUCKING GUY was just a poor little chap who had challenges in his life that made him KILL PEOPLE WITH BOMBS. And he didn't say anything about terrorism, so I guess we'll never know his motive!

Yes, that is something else Manley actually said: "We are never going to able to put a [rationale] behind these acts."

And we'll just have to take his word for it, since police have "no plans to release the video."

Another bit of kindness given to Mark Conditt and his family that would not be given to anyone who did not share his privilege.

Open Wide...

Storytelling: A Man, a Shopping Cart, and Why We Can't Have Nice Things

If you click the embedded sound file, you will hear me telling a story about something I saw recently and how it felt emblematic of the routine failures of responsibility and kindness that underwrite the erosion of democratic social infrastructure, in the vacuum of which authoritarianism thrives. A small thing, which represented something far more significant to me.

If you are unable to listen to audio, a complete transcript is below.


Transcript:

On a recent Saturday evening, Iain and I went for a late-night swim. It was an unseasonably warm winter night; we needed coats, but just barely. There was no rain, and the ground was dry, free of any snow or ice. These details are not intended just to paint a picture; they are important to this story.

After the gym, we went to a 24-hour grocery store, to pick up a few items for the next day. What we picked up is incidental. Those details do not matter.

What you need to know, however, about this particular grocery store is that it is an upscale chain whose patrons are (mostly) well-heeled, and that its cart returns in the parking lot are pretty fancy, at least by the standards I'm used to. They're covered with little roofs, to reduce the wear from sitting in rain and snow and blazing sunshine. And there are two kinds of carts, each with its own clearly marked lane in the covered cart return: Large shopping carts — the traditional kind — and upright carts. Smaller; two baskets on wheels, basically.

When we left the store with its sophisticated cart returns, into a midnight hour chilly and dry, in our line of sight across the virtually empty parking lot was a man. Here are the things I know about him: He was white, appeared to be in his mid-50s, was wearing an NFL franchise branded winter coat, drives a new-model white minivan with white stick figures of his family decaled on the rear window, and he had just finished shopping.

I know that last detail because we just caught him slamming down the van hatch and turning toward his empty cart. A large one. He was parked directly across the driving lane from a cart return. Maybe 15 yards, if that.

Now, at this point, you may be thinking: I bet this is a story about a person who didn't put his cart in the correct place in the cart return. That's a pretty good guess. Clearly, I am the sort of person who is annoyed by the seemingly endless number of wealthy, entitled drips who refuse to abide by the request to return carts into one of two lanes — lanes marked with both LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS and pictures of each cart shape, for anyone who may be illiterate or non-English speaking.

That I might have been irritated to distraction by a man lazily ignoring the store's simple and reasonable request, and instead just dumping his cart into the huge, chaotic jumble, seems very likely. But I assure you and regret to inform you: It was worse.

We were parked in the same row as the man — it was one of only two rows anyone was parked in, the closest spots to the front door, since it was quite late on this cool and arid weekend night — so we were walking toward him when we saw him grab the cart roughly, pull it toward him, then HEAVE it toward the cart return, lifting one of his legs up and behind him like a figure skater as he delivered the grand shove.

The cart careened in the general direction of the cart return — and also in the general direction of the car parked immediately beside it. I watched with horror as it nearly missed the bumper of the parked car and instead smashed, hard, directly into the outer rails of the cart return.

Never mind not putting his cart in the right lane; he didn't even get it in the cart return.

The man turned, satisfied, to get into his van. He caught me looking at him, open-mouthed and frozen in my tracks by the shock of what I'd just seen. He gave me a dirty look before hopping into his vehicle and pulling away — forward, naturally, and diagonally across empty spaces, breaking every rule of safely traversing a parking lot.

Perhaps I have mentioned that it was not a particularly cold night, nor a wet one. It was downright pleasant for midwinter. I don't know if the man was able-bodied, but I know he was able-bodied enough to walk the cart to the return, which would have been a less athletic feat than hurling it. Had he been in a desperate hurry, I doubt he'd have taken time to pause and smugly appreciate his fine flinging skills, nor to pause once more to give me a good glaring-at.

I am a person who presumes that people have decent or at least understandable reasons for doing the things that they do. I considered many possibilities, and I dismissed them all.

What I witnessed was just full-tilt shameless fuckery.

Iain and I loaded our items into the back of our car, then I walked our cart to the cart return. And then I got the man's cart and walked it to the cart return, too.

As I returned it to the correct lane, I pictured him hurling it and recalled his shitty face twisted into a self-satisfied grimace. And something in my brain just…broke.

I have been watching privileged people recklessly launch their fucking shopping carts and entirely missing the cart return my whole life. And I have been putting their fucking shopping carts where they belong my whole life, because I know if I don't do it, it will just be someone else's mess to clean up, so I might as well pitch in to the magnificent, sprawling campaign of cleaning up privileged people's fucking shopping carts, because they can't be bothered to stop making a goddamned mess with their fucking shopping carts.

I got in the car and began bitterly venting my spleen about this man and his fucking shopping cart, which Iain generously obliged. All the way home, I went on about this man throwing his fucking shopping cart just because he couldn't be arsed to walk it to the cart return, like his time is too bloody precious to participate in the social habits that maintain order.

His cavalier disregard for other people's property; his gross indolence; his sneering delight at his own hostility for the most basic decency.

This is why we can't have nice things. Like a functional democracy or social justice or world peace.

And many things far smaller than that.

Because there are too many people who can walk their fucking shopping carts to the cart return and put them in the correct lane, but won't.

Who think that those of us who do are suckers. Rubes. Sticklers. Nerds.

Losers.

And so we are. We are losing many things that I fear we will never get back. I shiver to contemplate the things we still have yet to lose, and the pain that it will cause.

He was just a man with a fucking shopping cart, behaving like an ass in a way that isn't even unfamiliar. But he was emblematic of something intolerable to me; of the throngs who are convinced beyond dissuasion that making an effort to do the right thing is not just unnecessary, but beneath them.

Open Wide...

This Is What Happens When the President Is a Bigot

[Content Note: Homophobia and transphobia.]

Something I've said many times over the past year is that Donald Trump didn't invent bigotry, but he has mightily empowered it.

At the Daily Beast, Samantha Allen reports on a grave consequence of that reckless sanction: A new survey, commissioned by GLAAD and conducted by The Harris Poll, found that support for LGBTQ Americans among their cishet countrypeople has precipitously diminished, marking "the first time in the four-year history of the Accelerating Acceptance report that GLAAD has witnessed a decline in LGBT acceptance."

"This year, the acceptance pendulum abruptly stopped and swung in the opposite direction," GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis wrote in the 2018 report, noting the sharp contrast between this year's results and the last three years of watching Americans report being "more comfortable with LGBTQ people and more supportive of LGBTQ issues."

The annual GLAAD survey asks non-LGBT Americans to describe how comfortable they are in several scenarios involving LGBT people, like learning that a doctor is LGBT, witnessing a same-sex couple holding hands, or worshipping alongside and LGBT person at church.

This year's version, conducted in November 2017, found "a decline with people's comfort year-over-year," not just in a few of the scenarios, but "in every LGBTQ situation."

For example, in 2016, 27 percent of non-LGBT Americans said that they would be "very" or "somewhat" uncomfortable with learning that a family member is LGBT; in 2017, that figure jumped all the way up to 32 percent.

...The popular wisdom was that 2017 was a uniquely awful year for LGBT Americans; the Accelerating Acceptance report is one of the first tangible signs of how bad it has been.
Naturally, there have been direct, interpersonal consequences for members of the LGBTQ community: "55 percent of LGBT respondents to the GLAAD survey reported experiencing discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in 2017, as compared to 44 percent who said the same in 2016."

Another troubling finding was that the number of self-identified "allies" dropped significantly:
The GLAAD survey sorts non-LGBT Americans into three broad categories based on their comfort level across the LGBT scenarios: "allies" who are "very" or "somewhat" comfortable with every scenario, "detached supporters" who vary in comfort based on the question, and "resisters" who report being "very" or "somewhat" uncomfortable in every situation.

The proportion of "resisters" has held steady at 14 percent of non-LGBT Americans since 2015 but the ratio of "allies" to "detached supporters" took a turn for the worse over the past year. Now, GLAAD counts 49 percent of the non-LGBT respondents as "allies," down from 53 percent in 2016. Over that some time span, the percentage of "detached supporters" rose from 33 percent to 37 percent.
That the number of "allies" has diminished is very telling, for a couple of reasons.

1. It speaks directly to the disingenuousness of "ally" as a fixed identity.

2. It confirms my suspicions that lots of privileged people who most aggressively identify as "allies" are doing it to mask their discomfort, as opposed to because they have an interest in doing the work to leverage their privilege on behalf of people without it. And, given the slightest room to indulge that discomfort, they will.

Relatedly, there are a lot of privileged folks who aren't particularly principled about their support for marginalized communities. They simply identify as "ally" when that's the more popular position, and jettison that identity when it's no longer fashionable.

3. Finally, and most importantly, as many social justice advocates have long argued, a public expectation of support for marginalized people matters. Hugely.

That is, privileged people must feel ashamed for failing to support marginalized populations, or a number of them won't fucking do it.

Empathy will only get us so far. The rest depends on creating a public perception that it's entirely unacceptable to not show support.

That's why Trump empowering bigotry is so dangerous. The whole "he's just saying what we're all thinking" stuff was always going to result in a backlash, because what it was doing was tearing away the boundaries that decent people had set in terms of what was publicly tolerated.

He unmuzzled bigots who felt constrained — and rightly so — by social disincentives to express their bigotry. Unleashing queerphobic rhetoric in turn creates space where more people feel okay about their reservations, as opposed to feeling obliged to interrogate them. Visible support from fewer cishet people — including those who are silent because they believe equality has been achieved (nope) and wouldn't need vigilant nurture even if it had been (wrong) — then creates even more space for expressed bigotry to thrive.

It's an ugly cycle and a massive failure among privileged people.

Trump is the ringleader of this grotesquery, but behind him roars an entire circus of seething hatred and dangerous indifference. Their spectacle is contagion, and it must be shut down.

Open Wide...

I Didn’t Vote for Trump. So I Have Nothing to Regret.

image of me holding a Hillary Clinton branded glass and smiling
I was with her. June 6, 2016.

Julius Krein, a conservative who founded the pro-Trump journal American Affairs, now regrets his vote for Donald Trump. What a story! Such an astounding story, in fact, that he has been given space at the New York Times to tell his amazing tale of being catastrophically wrong.

He uses an awful lot of words explaining how he came to be “riveted” by then-candidate Donald Trump, and pretending that Trump understands policy enough to be serious about it, before he comes to this:
From the very start of his run, one of the most serious charges against Mr. Trump was that he panders to racists. Many of his supporters, myself included, managed to convince ourselves that his more outrageous comments — such as the Judge Gonzalo Curiel controversy or his initial hesitance to disavow David Duke’s endorsement — were merely Bidenesque gaffes committed during the heat of a campaign.

It is now clear that we were deluding ourselves. Either Mr. Trump is genuinely sympathetic to the David Duke types, or he is so obtuse as to be utterly incapable of learning from his worst mistakes. Either way, he continues to prove his harshest critics right.
Even now. Even after Trump responded to a chilling display of white supremacist violence, in which one woman was killed and many others injured, by incredibly asserting “there’s blame on both sides.” Even after he insisted there were “very fine people” among the white supremacist provocateurs. Even after Trump has repeatedly employed a white supremacist talking point in defense of Confederate monuments.

Even now, Krein is not sure whether Trump is merely obtuse, or “sympathetic to the David Duke types.”

And he fails utterly to even entertain the possibility that Trump is himself an avowed white supremacist.

Which he clearly is.

Someone does not live a life careening from housing discrimination against Black applicants, to public musings on eugenics and the superiority of one’s own genes, to a crusade against exonerated men of color, to a birther campaign against the nation’s first Black president, to a presidential announcement address steeped in racism and nativism, to a campaign slogan that’s dogwhistled white supremacy, to anti-Semitic tweets and sloganeering, to an attack on a judge because of his ethnicity, to an entire campaign exploiting racial and xenophobic fears, to a presidential agenda centered around toxic attacks on immigrants and Muslims and demonizing cities with significant Black and/or immigrant populations, to defending Confederate monuments, and everything that has come before and in between, if one is merely obtuse.

Trump’s record on race is not one of accidental gaffes. It is one of a lifetime commitment to white supremacy.

And this, of course, is merely one of Krein’s failures to see Trump for who he really is. It is a monumental failure, and yet only one of many.

Donald Trump is a Russian nesting doll of character defects. Where other people have personality traits, Trump just has an endless promenade of red flags billowing in the breeze of his own shouted bravado. If there is a redeemable quality about the man, I have yet to see evidence of its existence.

And Krein overlooked all of it. Now he laments: “Far from making the transformative ‘deals’ he promised voters, his only talent appears to be creating grotesque media frenzies — just as all his critics said.”

Just as all his critics said. Not that they are being given space on the pages of the paper of record to make their case.

I was right about Donald Trump from the moment he announced his despicable candidacy. While highly paid (and highly visible) political commentators were having excited conversations about how “entertaining” Trump was, I was writing pieces about how dangerous Trump is, warning against treating him like a punchline.

Fully two years ago, I wrote: “The GOP would love it if we continue to treat Trump like a sideshow, instead of the uncensored id of their disgusting party that he really is.”

Where’s my New York Times spread for seeing plain as day one month into Trump’s campaign what Krein still cannot say with conviction: That Trump is a dangerous white supremacist who viciously exploits people who continue to extend him good faith, despite abundant evidence he doesn’t deserve any.

Krein’s piece comes immediately on the heels of the New York Times publishing the penned regret of a U-Va student newspaper editor who realized, only after Heather Heyer had been killed, that he had been “naive” about white supremacists.


What this tells us, among other things, is that the political media has not learned its lesson from the disastrous 2016. Still the voices of white men are prioritized, even when all they have to say is: I was wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, we should start listening to the people who got it right in the first place.

[Also published at Medium.]

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: White supremacy; privilege.]

"The video of this part-time Nazi, this junior secessionist, is a perfect portrait of the very white privilege the so-called 'alt-right' decries as liberal fiction. White privilege isn't just an easy bank loan or the cumulative effects of discriminatory housing policy. It's also the privilege to disappear. The privilege to terrorize a community and return to your regular life with the ease of peeling off a polo shirt."—CJ Hunt, writing for GQ about a video he shot of a young white man in Charlottesville who got separated from the group of white supremacists with whom he was demonstrating, so he took off his identifying shirt to conceal his ideology, as he tried to blend in with protestors chanting "Black Lives Matter."

Head on over to watch the video and/or read the whole thing.

[H/T to Eastsidekate.]

Open Wide...

Eastsidekate and Liss Talk About Stuff

[Content Note: Privilege. Conversation shared with Kate's permission.]

Liss: I think one of the (many) problems with a bunch of cishet white dudes being the loudest voices on the left is that purity politics is INCREDIBLY easy when you've never had to navigate internalized bigotry against yourself. I mean, I'm a lot less inclined to throw, say, Cory Booker in the garbage because he fucked up once on a women's issue (that's hypothetical; I don't even know if he has) when I've had to pull some ugly internalized misogyny out of my own female body and stare at it.

Eastsidekate: Well, and there's the quote from McKnight-Chavers about maybe wanting to see black people on Wall Street. White guys don't generally face criticism for having the audacity to feed themselves.

Liss: Exactly.

Eastsidekate: We have a system that benefits these guys from cradle-to-grave whether they ask it to or not, but as soon as a marginalized person wants to benefit, they're impure. It's the whole "I'm not privileged because I didn't choose to benefit from my position" argument.

Liss: OMG such a good point, Kate. So well said. They pat themselves on the back for "rejecting" the avenues they believe are impure, and then wonder why we're not impressed. Well, maybe because we don't even have those opportunities. And then they're like, "You shouldn't even want them." WELL, MAYBE I DON'T WANT TO WALK THAT PATH, BUT I'D AT LEAST LIKE THE GATE OPENED SO I HAVE A CHOICE. That's the thing they always miss — that what we're fighting for is often just the choice to make the same decisions they get to.

Eastsidekate: bell emoji

Open Wide...

Don't Look Away

[Content Note: Fat hatred.]

Your Fat Friend has written a terrific piece about thin people who find comments sections on fat advocacy pieces too harrowing to read: "Your Fat Friend Wants You to Read the Comments."

I shared a few comments with you in the hope of finding a witness to the cacophony in response to my handful of tweets — someone who could confirm the absurdity and harshness of strangers' responses. I should've anticipated what you would say.

Don't read the comments. I never do.

You, like so many other thin friends, were shaken, and found the comments too harrowing to continue reading.

I was surprised. These comments weren't anything I didn't hear regularly. These are words that strangers will readily say to me, face to face. Passersby shout epithets on the street. When turned down for a date, men snap "fat bitch" back at me with startling ease. Family members offer an unwelcome and unsolicited onslaught of diet advice and surgeon recommendations. Coworkers complain loudly about sitting next to passengers smaller than me. These comments are as ubiquitous as the air that I breathe. And like the air, they are invisible to you.

[...] I don't read the comments. I never do.

But, my darling friend, the comments are the one passage from your world to mine. The comments are what I breathe every day — the heavy smog that thickens in my lungs. The cloudy mess I exhale when I tell you what has happened. The thick skin that has brought me this far, and allowed me to take so much in stride.

I need you to peer into the world I walk through every day. I need you to read the comments.
There is much, much more at the link, and I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing.

It's a very good companion piece to one I wrote in October 2013: "I Wouldn't Even If I Could." That's about the advice that I should "just ignore" fat hatred, while Your Fat Friend's is about thin people confessing that they just ignore it (because they can).

Both of those dynamics are part and parcel of entrenching thin privilege by pretending that marginalization and abuse of fat people doesn't exist, even as such insistence is rooted in evidence of fat hatred's harm.

To posit that ignoring fat hatred is a viable option for fat people is absurd and cruel.

And any thin person who wants to do effective ally work in solidarity with fat people will never ask us to salve their discomfort at evidence of our abuse by ignoring it. Read the comments. Don't just ignore what our lived experiences really look like.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Here's the math: If I did not look the way I do, then I would not be on TV or on two book covers. I would not have a beauty column or an Instagram with more than 100,000 followers. This does not mean that I have not put in work and effort and done my job well, but my beauty is not something that I earned. I did not work for it, yet it has opened doors for me, allowing me to be seen and heard. And for me to pretend that it does not exist denies the ways in which being perceived as pretty has contributed to my success and made the road a bit smoother."—Janet Mock, writing very frankly about the privileges she enjoys because of the ways in which her appearance hews closely to kyriarchal beauty standards.

Her entire essay, "Being Pretty Is a Privilege, But We Refuse to Acknowledge It," is worth your time to read.

It's also a very interesting juxtaposition to the dynamic Shonda Rhimes was describing, which I highlighted in yesterday's Quote of the Day.

[Related Reading: Ugly Girl.]

Open Wide...

"It's fundamentally not rights-oriented."

[Content Note: Racism; anti-Semitism; Islamophobia; misogyny; abuse.]

Julia Angwin and Hannes Grassegger have written a terrific piece for ProPublica, bluntly titled: "Facebook's Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men from Hate Speech But Not Black Children." It's a long read, but well worth your time and attention, so settle in.

I will just quickly highlight this passage, whence comes the title for my post (emphasis mine):

By 2008, the company had begun expanding internationally but its censorship rulebook was still just a single page with a list of material to be excised, such as images of nudity and Hitler. "At the bottom of the page it said, 'Take down anything else that makes you feel uncomfortable,'" said Dave Willner, who joined Facebook's content team that year.

Willner, who reviewed about 15,000 photos a day, soon found the rules were not rigorous enough. He and some colleagues worked to develop a coherent philosophy underpinning the rules, while refining the rules themselves. Soon he was promoted to head the content policy team.

By the time he left Facebook in 2013, Willner had shepherded a 15,000-word rulebook that remains the basis for many of Facebook's content standards today.

"There is no path that makes people happy," Willner said. "All the rules are mildly upsetting." Because of the volume of decisions — many millions per day — the approach is "more utilitarian than we are used to in our justice system," he said. "It's fundamentally not rights-oriented."
Well, that's refreshingly frank and ALSO TERRIBLE.

The question, of course, is if the approach to moderation is "fundamentally not rights-oriented," to what is it oriented? Profits, is the simple answer — but because Facebook's primary profit-making enterprise is data collection on its users, I think the true answer is slightly more complex and sinister, as they try to balance the appearance of safety for users with the ruthless exploitation and tolerance of abuse of those users for their advertisers.

One additional observation: There's nothing in the article about the flagging of content by users. And I suspect that plays a huge role in how moderating decisions get made.

I know from experience that conservatives (and "far-leftists" who imagine they're not conservatives) spend an inordinate amount of time tracking and policing and reporting people they don't like.

I suspect that progressives generally spend a lot less time focused on the people we don't like, and have a much lower impulse for tracking and reporting.

What does that mean on Facebook? It's very likely that's going to influence how people who receive reports on flagged content respond as moderators.

Similarly, the options that Facebook provides for reporting inappropriate content shape those reports in a very particular way:

Option 1: It's annoying or not interesting
Option 2: I think it shouldn't be on Facebook
Option 3: It's a false news story
Option 4: It's spam

That's it. There's not even an option for reporting something as harmful, abusive, etc.

If I were going to report abusive content — let's say racist content, for this example — I'm not going to choose "annoying or not interesting," because I find racist content rather more problematic than "annoying."

I would choose "I think it shouldn't be on Facebook," which is the only subjective option of the four. My report gets submitted already prefaced with "I think," as opposed to my being able to definitively say it doesn't belong, though I would be able to definitively say it's annoying, even though that is arguably more subjective than whether abusive material "shouldn't be on Facebook."

That doesn't seem incidental. And I strongly suspect that who reports content, and how it gets reported, has a major impact on the deeply problematic aspects of Facebook's secret censorship strategy.

Open Wide...

Sorry, Jimmy Fallon. We All Have to Pick Sides Now.

Of all the bullshit the New York Times has pulled lately (or ever), this ranks pretty low on the list, but it is still making me rageface all the same: Jimmy Fallon Was on Top of the World. Then Came Trump.

It's another White Man Redemption Story, starring Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon, whose ratings sunk after he infamously tousled then-candidate Donald Trump's hair.

[A]s Mr. Fallon is well aware, viewers haven't seen him in quite the same light since an interview he conducted with Mr. Trump in September, which was widely criticized for its fawning, forgiving tone. In a gesture that has come to haunt the host, he concluded the segment by playfully running his fingers through Mr. Trump's hair.

Mr. Fallon acknowledges now that the Trump interview was a setback, if not quite a mistake, and he has absorbed at least a portion of the anger that was directed at him by critics and online detractors.

"They have a right to be mad," a chastened Mr. Fallon said in an interview this month. "If I let anyone down, it hurt my feelings that they didn't like it. I got it."

..."I don't want to be bullied into not being me, and not doing what I think is funny," he said more defiantly. "Just because some people bash me on Twitter, it's not going to change my humor or my show."

...That day had been a particularly contentious one for Mr. Trump, then the Republican presidential nominee: In a Washington Post interview, he refused to say that President Obama was born in the United States, and his son Donald Jr. was being criticized for saying "they'd be warming up the gas chamber" if Republicans behaved as Democrats did.

Mr. Fallon's questions, however, were mostly innocuous; he asked Mr. Trump why children should want to grow up to be president and if his business background had helped him in the campaign. Their conversation concluded with Mr. Fallon fulfilling his longstanding wish of ruffling Mr. Trump's hair.

...Speaking in a quiet, tentative tone, Mr. Fallon seemed to be reliving the experience as he recounted it.

"I'm a people pleaser," he said. "If there's one bad thing on Twitter about me, it will make me upset. So, after this happened, I was devastated. I didn't mean anything by it. I was just trying to have fun."
There is much, much more at the link, where Fallon is described as "boyish," "self-deprecating," and "multitalented but apolitical."

That last one, the narrative that Fallon is "apolitical," runs throughout the piece. It is, indeed, central to the redemption tale. It is also a lie.


The profile goes to great lengths to impress upon us that Fallon is a nice guy, so well-intentioned, just trying to have a little middle-of-the-road fun. He feels so bad, bullied even, when we are mean to him.

Many of Fallon's famous friends show up to explain that Fallon just isn't an edgy, political guy. He wants to provide silly humor for as wide an audience as possible.

What we are meant to understand is that Jimmy Fallon just doesn't pick sides, okay?

No. That's not okay.

It wasn't okay when Fallon ruffled Trump's hair before the election, and it sure as shit isn't okay now that Trump is president.

Trump is unlike, in countless ways, any president the United States has had before. Chiefly, he is an authoritarian with aggressive hostility for our democratic institutions. He is waging war against the intelligence community, the courts, and the media. He questions the integrity of elections, and oversees chants bellowing for the incarceration of political opponents who have committed no crime. He is a grifter who is using the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family. He is dangerously incompetent at best, and, at worst, has committed treason. He is an inveterate bigot, a bully, and a repeat sexual assaulter.

And that isn't even a comprehensive list. In the last week alone, he has betrayed an ally to a foreign adversary and fired the FBI Director who was investigating his administration, in a naked attempt to consolidate power and subvert the justice system. That is not the act of a president, but of a dictator.

Our very republic is at risk. If you don't pick resistance, you are picking acceptance. You are picking abetting a coup.

There is no neutral anymore. Not for Jimmy Fallon, and not for any of us.

Open Wide...

A Terrible Trifecta

[Content Note: Privilege; bigotry.]


Late Friday, I wrote about former Vice-President Joe Biden's objectionable comments regarding the last election. He was, as it turned out, just leading a parade of white men who wanted to weigh in with their wisdom on Friday.

At an Our Revolution rally in Boston, Senator Bernie Sanders had this to say:

Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and just deplorable folks. I don't agree. I don't agree, 'cause I've been there. Let me tell you something else some of you may not agree with, and that is: It wasn't that Donald Trump won the election; it was that the Democratic Party lost the election!
I had quite a few things to say about Sanders' contention that Trump voters, full-stop, are not racist, sexist, or homophobe, and I have Storified all of my tweets about it from the weekend. There will also be a dedicated piece on Sanders' comments, authored by Fannie, which will follow this one.

My Twitter commentary focuses, as does Fannie's piece, on the first part of Sanders' comments, so here I want to highlight the second part, in which he asserts that Trump didn't win the election, but Democrats lost it.

There is a whole lot wrong with that statement, starting with the fact that blaming Democrats—especially the specific Democrat, Hillary Clinton, whom Sanders, like Biden, doesn't have the decency to name—won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Clinton did indeed lose the election, but not because her ideas and policies and values were less popular. Which makes this smug posturing incredibly mendacious. And counterproductive.

Clinton got millions of more votes, and Trump is already, ten weeks into his presidency, historically unpopular. He reached the Oval Office in large part because of election interference. It's extremely difficult to reasonably justify shitting all over Clinton's campaign, given these facts, even though she is not president.

Further, if there is a Democrat who deserves blame for losing this election, it's fairweather Democrat Bernie Sanders, who spent the entirety of the Democratic primary amplifying three decades of Republican tropes about Clinton and validating those viciously dishonest narratives about her. He endlessly repeated an inaccurate and misogynist mischaracterization of Clinton, until millions of progressive voters believed it was true. He straight-up lied about Clinton calling him unqualified, only to give himself an excuse to call her unqualified. When his campaign got called out for using misogyny against her, they accused her of attacking them. And on and on and on.

Sanders did everything he could to weaken Clinton as a candidate, and now has the unmitigated temerity to suggest that she lost the election and allowed Trump to win. Breathtaking.

Finally on Friday night, Bill Maher's Real Time showcased Maher and Rick Santorum finding agreement that liberals are stupid and oversensitive and don't know how to take a joke and that's why we lose.

Maher: ...because Bill O'Reilly made a joke about Maxine Waters' hair. [He is referring to O'Reilly's misogynist and racist commentary on Rep. Maxine Waters' hair.] This is so typical of—

Neera Tanden: Okay, she spoke out against racism and sexism, Bill. That's what she spoke out against, all right?

Maher: She spoke out about a joke! [crosstalk] You know that? This is why the Democrats lost the election in the first place—because they cannot get their priorities straight, and they never fail to take the bait about little bullshit issues—

Tanden: I don't think racism and sexism are little bullshit issues—

Maher: Why is that racist?! Why is it racist?! Because he compared two Black people?!

Tanden: Okay, do you know how April Ryan was treated, or are you saying he would have treated a man like that? Is that—

Maher: Yes!

Tanden: —what you're saying? A white dude would be treated like that? I don't think that's right!

Maher: You're referring to the fact that—

Tanden: That Sean Spicer—

Maher: —said to a woman in the audi— [crosstalk] in the briefing, April Ryan, who is an African American, and they were going back and forth, and she was shaking her head, and he said, "Please stop shaking your head," and you go immediately to, "It's a racist thing about [puts on stereotypical imitation of a Black woman holding up her finger and rolling her head] oh no he didn't!"

[crosstalk between men as Tanden makes a face and a disgusted noise]

Rick Santorum: If I may—

Maher: Yes, please.

Santorum: If I may, as someone who comes on this show who can take a joke—

Maher: Right!

Santorum: —and, about Catholic priests, and doesn't scream and holler how offended I am, and how horrible this is— [crosstalk with Tanden] I shook my head and said, "You know, off-color joke. You know what? We're big boys and girls here—

Maher: Right!

Santorum: —you know, don't be outraged at every offense." That's one of the problems we have. Stop the fake outrage!

Tanden: It's not fake! It's not fake outrage!

Santorum: Well, if it isn't fake outrage, then you should learn to take a joke and move on.

Tanden: You're right, there's not enough— You're right, you're right, you're right. The first four or five months of Trump there've been no— We're all oversensitive about the attacks on women and people of color. You're right! That's exactly the issue.

Maher: There are real issues about that. Not jokes.
There are a whole lot of reasons that "we" didn't win the last presidential election, but chief among them—and this becomes clearer every day—is the fact that straight white cis men still refuse to listen to people who don't share their privileges.

Many of them, far too many, didn't want to listen to a woman who told them the truth, and they still aren't listening to marginalized people. And the refusal to listen would be bad enough on its own, but it is an active not listening: It is auditing our lived experiences; it is gaslighting; it is silencing.

It is telling us, over and over, that we are the reason we lost. When we were the ones who got it right.

I have said it before, and I will no doubt regrettably have reason to say it again: The most radical act that any privileged person can do in this moment is shut the fuck up and listen.

Open Wide...

The Long Slog of Progress


Hillary in Pictures memed this beautiful photo from the campaign trail, taken by Barbara Kinney, about which I wrote a short piece, which ended up being widely shared.

When I saw their tweet this morning, it was perfectly timed, as I happened to be thinking about some of the erroneously characterized "populist" rhetoric currently in fashion, designed to appeal primarily to the resentments of straight, white, able-bodied, cis men, who are not wealthy.

Specifically, I was thinking about how that rhetoric functions to perfectly serve the entitlement that underwrites that resentment. The entitlement that is, for instance, evident in articles like this one at the conservative Federalist, which argues that the the Alt-Right is "what happens" when (privileged) men are expected to participate on a level playing field.

Or this one at the New York Times, in which a professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School posits that one of the "reasons that men may be reluctant to take jobs in the growing service sector" is because "many service sector jobs involve 'serving' people of higher social status. I think women are more willing to do this—for cultural or genetic reasons, who knows."

Who knows. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To a large extent, much of this "populist" rhetoric centers, though not explicitly, the idea that highly privileged people have the luxury of being lazy about politics, and that they want to keep being lazy.

"Populist" rhetoric of a certain sort assures them that they can be: It doesn't demand that anyone make sacrifices, or show up, or even do their homework to learn the basics of how politics and governance actually work.

It's sweeping promises that suggest all it takes to get things done is making lots of noise and showing up to vote once in awhile.

I recently wrote: "[Many voters] still haven't learned the most important lesson about themselves: That they eagerly preferred to listen to men who told them what they wanted to hear than a woman who told them the truth."

One of the truths Hillary Clinton told us, if not explicitly, is that progress doesn't happen instantaneously. Politics is rarely grand gestures and explosive moments; it is measured in frustratingly small increments, and many of the "biggest" moments consist of work that is not even visible. A phrase removed from, or inserted into, a piece of legislation can be a triumph. It can affect millions of lives, and the decades of advocacy and hours of last-minute negotiations can yet go virtually unseen.

What a horrible reality for people who are used to getting everything they want on demand. Who have become accustomed to instant gratification.

That thing about Hillary that so many of us admired, and which strongly resonated with us—that she works so hard—was probably a huge turn-off to lots of people.

People who did not like hearing that effective governance is an extremely deliberative process.

That progress is a long slog.

She represented, she embodied, the notion that politics and progress are incremental and take lots of grit and determination and patience and work. That made me admire her. I'm sure it made lots of people resent her, because she was communicating the last thing they wanted to hear.

They wanted someone who would give them things now. And here we are, with a president who wants to make things happen fast, and it's a fucking disaster. Because fast is anathema to good governance.

And I suspect that it mattered—a lot—that it was a woman modeling for us what the incremental, deliberative, difficult work of progress really looks like.

Every pundit who groused that she reminded them of a nagging wife. Every internet commenter who complained that she reminded them of their nagging mothers. Resentful of those women who had the temerity to expect them to participate in household or emotional maintenance. In each of these bitter complaints was embedded a hostility to the notion of women doing and expecting hard work.

And a resentment that very privileged people are now facing a world in which they might be expected to work as hard as marginalized people have always had to work. A world in which very privileged people might have to earn that to which they feel entitled.

Some of them have already begun to discover that which people without their privileges have known for a very long time: Sometimes all the hard work one's body can give won't provide what one needs, no less that to which one feels entitled.

The only effective response to that is committing oneself to the hard work the long slog of progress demands. But many of them refuse to do that hard work, preferring instead the gossamer promises of men who vow to restore their privilege.

I look at that picture of Hillary Clinton and I see an invitation to join her in the hard work that needs to be done, not a figure of contempt who expects of me something I'm unwilling to give.

Progress demands our participation. Anyone who has had the luxury of not understanding that until this moment must greet it with fervor for the work that needs to be done. Because they've long been exploiting the work of others, who lacked such luxury for their whole lives.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: White privilege.]

"The consequences are serious. When we don't talk honestly with white children about racism, they become more likely to disbelieve or discount their peers when they report experiencing racism. 'But we're all equal' becomes a rote response that actually blocks white children from recognizing or taking seriously racism when they see it or hear about it. ...White children are exposed to racism daily. If we parents don't point it out, show how it works, and teach why it is false, over time our children are more likely to accept racist messages at face value."—Jennifer Harvey, in a thoughtful piece for the New York Times, "Are We Raising Racists?"

Open Wide...