Oh Gawker. Lindy West's Jezebel post on Hipster Racism is blowing up certain parts of the Internet today. In it, West goes over four main points of "hipster racism"—where folks justify racism by poorly hiding behind irony (Sarah Silverman—we see you!). On Racialicious, Carmen Van Kerckhove dubbed hipster racism one of 2006's top race and pop culture trends, which means that hipster or "ironic" racism has been a topic of conversation by writers of color and others in the social justice sphere for literally years. You won't find any links or acknowledgments of these earlier discussions in West's Jezebel post, but hey, at least a whole new audience of people will be that much closer to knowing how to talk about stuff like Lesley Arfin's insensitive, "ironic" tweet last week.
One dude definitely didn't read the post though (or maybe he did read it, and was oblivious). A. J. Daulerio of Gawker (remember, Jezebel is part of Gawker Media) posted a short but incredibly whiny post complaining about the backlash of Gawker's strange new comments system. "Change is disruptive. Change makes old things go away. Boo, change. We'll deal," said Daulerio. He concluded, "I'm just trying to build sturdy branches for us to chat on. Let's go be a fun family of talking birds on branches in the comments and have a meaningful Native American Chit-Chat. Come, come." What? In case this appropriative and nonsensical metaphor didn't call enough attention to itself, there was also a large graphic of three black birds with feather headbands. You can see the graphic below, followed by the sarcastic Twitter response of Adrienne at Native Appropriations: "Thanks for the insensitive graphic, Gawker. You guys are really on point with the hipster racism. So ironic and funny!"
This isn't really much of a surprise though. Just a couple weeks ago Jezebel editor Jessica Coen trotted out some hipster ableism when she tweeted "The word 'ableism' is lame and crazy." Stay tuned for a bestselling book by her, Daulerio, Arfin (and you too, Chloë Sevigny?!) called How to Be Offensive When You're on the Defensive. You'll know it because of the feathered headdresses on the cover.
Source is one of the few places where it's okay to read the comments
This is exactly what I'm saying. It's about forcing people who don't want to stop being sexist/racist/homophobic/whatever to listen or change by having allies ostracize them or call out their bullshit. I'm not saying that it's always the case that only allies can get through to some of those assholes, but be real. In extreme cases of bigotry-- the bigots will not listen to those they are prejudice against. If a person is extremely racist, how likely is it that they will listen to what POC have to say without dismissing the POC before they even speak? Having allies get through to them doesn't mean they're suddenly no longer a bigot, just that they make small progresses.
My guys friends have made break-throughs with guys I could not, because some people are so sexist that everything I say is invalid. Are they suddenly not sexist because they listened to an ally? Hell no, but they did make small progress. Are they less dismissive of women now? lol no, but they don't make 'get in the kitchen' jokes anymore because a guy spoke up and explained why it's fucked up and they listened to him.
2) In extreme cases of bigotry-- the bigots will not listen to those they are prejudice against.
And these are the same people who will call allies "p***y-whipped" or closeted or whatever thing they can come up with to dismiss allies as just being fucking weak, so this argument doesn't work.
3) My guys friends have made break-throughs with guys I could not, because some people are so sexist that everything I say is invalid. Are they suddenly not sexist because they listened to an ally? Hell no, but they did make small progress. Are they less dismissive of women now? lol no, but they don't make 'get in the kitchen' jokes anymore because a guy spoke up and explained why it's fucked up and they listened to him.
So did your guy friends go on extremely popular websites preaching to these other guys (rather than giving the platform to a woman who'd be better able to tackle this issue of prejudice) or did they individually approach men, or men in a personal sphere? In the case of the former, my eye remains side. In the case of the latter, see my last comment.
Edited for html.
Edited at 2012-04-27 10:05 pm (UTC)
2) Not always. Yes, a lot of times there are completely lost causes and they won't listen to anyone but most of the time (IME) they will listen to some white/able/male/straight ally and not be so dismissive of their points. Gateway drugs, if you will.
3) Generally (in my anecdotal experience), this has happened on community gaming forums or facebook groups. There are plenty of examples of it happening in 'large scale' via public speakers or public figures.
Edited at 2012-04-27 10:29 pm (UTC)
2) I'm glad your anecdata supports your opinion. Anecdata does that.
3) There are plenty of examples of it happening in 'large scale' via public speakers or public figures.
Please to be pointing me to where these "I'M NOT EVEN GONNA LISTEN TO THAT FUCKING *insertminorityslurhere* TALK!" people were "converted" via such actions. TED conferences are not appropriate samplings of humanity.
Edited at 2012-04-27 11:05 pm (UTC)