Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:37 AM
Thu Nov 12
67 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/15/09
#questions
#tips
10/06/09
10/06/09
ted koppel is the master. barbara walters is alright - she gets too precious in her delivery. with oprah, she's a good interviewer in that she'll softball, but only to a point. she lost a bunch of points when she asked the olsen twins what they ate for breakfast, though. stupid ass question. charlie rose is good, but let's face it, he's got, like, half an hour for his interviews, and that's just the part they show.
10/06/09
And I want to defend Ann Curry, but after watching the whole video, she comes off as kind of patronizing. Helen's old, but she's clearly not stupid. "I want to die with my boots on" clearly means with her pen in hand, Ann.
10/06/09
10/06/09
What the hell kind of question is that?
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
"The Shortest Distance Between Two Points" would be a great title for an inspirational belter to close the first act.
"And I will ask the questions!
And I will find the truth!
Because the shorteeeeeeest
Distaaaaaaance
Betweeeeeeen twoooo pooints...
Is a straight liiiiiiiiiiiine!"
ba bada ba baaaa! Bum.
Curtain.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
12/23/08
12/23/08
I died a little.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/24/08
Don't forget the UK's Panda contribution:
LILY ALLEN PANDA!!!
12/23/08
12/23/08
Disclaimer: I am a white girl and I do not claim to understand the entire black experience, therefore, I may have no clue what I'm talking about. Also, I realize these problems I spoke of are not necessarily specific to AA's and they are obviously the result of the shameful history of slavery and bigotry in this country.
I hope I have not offended anyone. I love everyone. :)
12/23/08
12/23/08
The woman who wrote the article is black. There is a picture of her. Also, my post didn't contain anything about taking away affirmative action, quotas, etc, nor did the full article. Additionally, her term "excuses" was specifically what I had a problem with, then I clarified how I think she could have phrased it better. My final comment also touched on the fact that this country's history of bigotry (not that it is entirely in the past, obviously) is incredibly far-reaching.
I think you may have a) not read the article and/or b) misunderstood something about my post.
12/23/08
@rubyinthedust: "no more excuses" is a term that is used to trivialize the experiences of people of color Like I_Love_AFI, it is this reasoning that tries to shut down social programs, scholarships, affirmative action etc. This article and your comment ignores that racism is institutionalized, not something people can just buck because the president is black.
12/23/08
Ahhh! People....how are people thinking I said something which is the exact opposite of what I said. I obviously phrased something very poorly in my post, though I have gone back and read it and I don't see it but it is hard to proofread yourself.
TO CLARIFY: The way Ms. Reid phrased it, "no more excuses", is precisely how I would NOT have phrased it and is NOT how I think of it. As I stated in my original post, I would have framed it more in terms of the uplifting experience of seeing a black man become prez. I understand that racism is institutionalized. How are people getting something else from my post. Am I taking crazy pills? What is going on?
12/23/08
@rubyinthedust: Your comment rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed a little bit fake, no offense.
12/23/08
this article is a advertisement for this woman's organization Marry Your Baby Daddy. When Reid writes about marriage she also pushes for a bit of subservient roles for women. That men would not be scared to marry black women if they were more lady like.
Also, it is promoted by Zane PResents and when you see that on a book or Zane praising an author, you should run far far away.
12/23/08
12/23/08
First off, AA benefits white women more than it does people color. It benefits white women in both employment and educational opportunities. Why does no one have a problem with this? Doesn't that cheapen the advancements of white women?
And saying that under educated parents and poverty is a bigger barrier than color is both playing the oppression olympics and ignorant
12/23/08
12/23/08
Amazing how people of color are made to feel bad about affirmative action (which again, benefits white women more) but those who got into their jobs by connections or got into their school by a legacy aren't made to feel stigmatized.
Kinda like how black people in urban areas are the face of those who are abusing the welfare system when there are more white families bar none in rural areas on government assistant.
12/23/08
And I love how the movement commands women to "marry their babydaddy" as if the women are the holdouts on this issue.
12/23/08
12/24/08
Also, do not presume I want affirmative action for white women, either (nor have I ever benefited from AA for women). I do not. Unless that white woman went to an under-funded high school and we're considering college admissions/scholarships, in which case I want the same consideration for white boys and black children and everyone else. So yes, I still say that race-based affirmative action is problematic, and ignores the real problem in America -- we have a growing chasm between rich and poor, and there is little, if any, opportunity for those in poverty to escape.
But thanks for playing.
12/24/08
12/24/08
"Let me share an analogy to make the point.
Taking things out of the racial context for a minute: imagine persons who are able bodied, as opposed to those with disabilities. If I were to say that able-bodied persons have certain advantages, certain privileges if you will, which disabled persons do not, who would argue the point? I imagine that no one would. It's too obvious, right? To be disabled is to face numerous obstacles. And although many persons with disabilities overcome those obstacles, this fact doesn't take away from the fact that they exist. Likewise, that persons with disabilities can and do overcome obstacles every day, doesn't deny that those of us who are able-bodied have an edge. We have one less thing to think and worry about as we enter a building, go to a workplace, or just try and navigate the contours of daily life. The fact that there are lots of able-bodied people who are poor, and some disabled folks who are rich, doesn't alter the general rule: on balance, it pays to be able-bodied.
That's all I'm saying about white privilege: on balance, it pays to be a member of the dominant racial group. It doesn't mean that a white person will get everything they want in life, or win every competition, but it does mean that there are general advantages that we receive.
So, for instance, studies have found that job applicants with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a call-back for a job interview than applicants with black-sounding names, even when all job-related qualifications and credentials are the same.
Other studies have found that white men with a criminal record are more likely to get a call-back for an interview than black male job applicants who don't have one, even when all requisite qualifications, demeanor and communication styles are the same.
Others have found that white women are far more likely than black women to be hired for work through temporary agencies, even when the black women have more experience and are more qualified.
Evidence from housing markets has found that there are about two million cases of race-based discrimination against people of color every year in the United States. That's not just bad for folks of color; the flipside is that there are, as a result, millions more places I can live as a white person.
That's the point: privilege is the flipside of discrimination. If people of color face discrimination, in housing, employment and elsewhere, then the rest of us are receiving a de facto subsidy, a privilege, an advantage in those realms of daily life. There can be no down without an up, in other words.
None of this means that white folks don't face challenges. Of course we do, and some of them (based on class, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other factors) are systemic and institutionalized. But on balance, we can take for granted that we will receive a leg-up on those persons of color with whom we share a nation.
And no, affirmative action doesn't change any of this.
Despite white fears to the contrary, even with affirmative action in place (which, contrary to popular belief does not allow quotas or formal set-asides except in those rare cases where blatant discrimination has been proven) whites hold about ninety percent of all the management level jobs in this country, receive about ninety-four percent of government contract dollars, and hold ninety percent of tenured faculty positions on college campuses. And in spite of affirmative action programs, whites are more likely than members of any other racial group to be admitted to their college of first choice.* And according to a study released last year, for every student of color who received even the slightest consideration from an affirmative action program in college, there are two whites who failed to meet normal qualification requirements at the same school, but who got in anyway because of parental influence, alumni status or because other favors were done."
---Tim Wise [www.redroom.com]
You can read the rest here and all sources are cited.
12/24/08
All these things are intertwined. By saying that socioeconomics is the biggest factor holding people ignores that people of color historically been denied opportunities to gain wealth. One -ism or -phobia is not worse than another. They are all linked and work together to hold women, people of color, poor white immigrants, homosexuals and handicapped people down.
No you are not racist And you shouldn't feel that way, we should be able to have a disscussion.
We don't have to agree but in order to have this kind of conversation you need to understand the basics. I would really recommend that you read Tim Wise--his website essay archives or look for his books--or some other author who focus on institutionalized racism. Again, we don't have to agree on affirmative action but if you don't have an understanding of priviledge first,then what could be a great discussion won't go anywhere.
I would love to give you some book recommendations--for both sides of this debate--if you are interested you can PM me.
12/27/08
12/27/08
12/23/08
I can't wait for the study that determines that boys indeed do not make passes at girls who wear glasses, or the article about how science has just proven that beer before liquor means never sicker, while liquor before beer puts one in the clear.
12/23/08
Liquor?
I don't even know her!
har har...
12/23/08
Also, you can't fool me Easy Curves! As a flat-chested pre-teen, I tried every stupid bust enchancement method advertised next to the X-ray glasses and whoopie cushions and yet here I sit, a flat-chested adult. Short of surgery, nothing will fix this genetic betrayal.
12/23/08
12/23/08