Closing the Racial Gap

Earlier this semester, we talked about a study that distributed identical resumes to numerous jobs with only one difference between them - One had the name Todd Allen, and one Tyrone Allen. And the disappointing outcome is the one you have begrudgingly learned to expect - this one difference had an impact on the number of callbacks and interviews scheduled.

I'm not sure when that study was conducted, but not a lot has changed. The NY Times printed an article yesterday that said the same thing - there is a racial divide in job hunting, and not even a college degree can level the playing field.

What does this say about the world we live in? I have a lot of responses to an article like this. First of all, if someone gets your resume, and disregards it because your name is "too black," would a black person feel comfortable working there in the first place? That isn't a good answer or argument, because accepting this discrimination tacitly approves of this behavior. The article says that many black men are wiping any racial evidence from their resumes to be sure that any rejections aren't because of race. I don't know what this is like, as someone who benefits from white privilege - if I get turned down from a job, race isn't one of the factors I fear the reasoning was. But I do have a strange connection to this discrimination.

I'm a feminist - a loud, proud feminist. When we made our resumes last semester in graphics, I wasn't sure how to incorporate this into my resume - or if I even should. If anyone balked at my feminism, screw them - I wouldn't want to work for them anyway. But are there some things that shouldn't be mentioned in a professional resume? Aside from the fact there was no real place to put it, no rules about how to show it. I want my feminism to speak through my resume - it's an undeniable part of my identity. I guess that's vaguely comparable to this race argument. On the whole, I shouldn't have to think about being discriminated for my feminism, just as people of color shouldn't have to face discrimination for their race. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

One of the black men quoted said “If they’re going to X me, I’d like to at least get in the door first.” And there's something to be said for that. Nobody wants to be preemptively judged. But whitewashing your resume seems almost equally problematic to me, and this Times article doesn't bring that up. No white people have to alter their resumes in the same way, taking out race to seem more appealing (but I suppose gay people make theirs straighter at times, and disabled people make sure not to allude to their disability, for these same reasons).

This article kinda stresses me out - I wish it addressed larger issues about discrimination and what whitewashing actually says about racism in America. But at least its framed in a way that makes it clear that this isn't right, and that this shouldn't happen. Even though it keeps saying none of this racism is overt - what does that mean? Isn't that just excusing it?

Anyway, I'm headed to DC tomorrow to lobby against the Stupak amendment - so expect a post about that!

Surprise: Men Dominate Late-Night TV

Turn on your TV - right now.
Its 11:53 PM as I write this, and I can almost guarantee that you won't see any women when you turn that thing on. I've noticed this before - late night TV is owned by dudes.
Anyone on any "late show" (even the late late shows!) is a dude-- even our favorite satirical late night shows feature men - Colbert and Stewart.

OK, maybe things are changing. Slowly. I'm vaguely thinking of Katie Couric and the increase of women news anchors on evening news. That's cool, and that's important. And I'm thinking of Rachel Maddow, who is freaking awesome. But my thoughts about the View and the Ellen DeGeneres show cloud my brain. These shows are kinda great - they touch on a lot of good stuff and have gained respectability…yet they're relegated to daytime.

And then let's think about the recent news about Letterman's affairs with women who work for him. We don't know the details, but there's something going on in this late night world that needs some more attention. No, not that kind of attention.

The New York Times just ran a story about the lack of female writers on late-night TV.

There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” none on “Late Show with David Letterman,” none on “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien.”

How can this be? Are women not watching late night? Well, that's not it - the Times reports that more than half of viewership for each of those programs is made up of women.

Maybe women just aren't applying for these positions? Could be. In that Times article, one woman says that less than %5 of submissions from writers were from women. But the Herald (The Arkansas State University newspaper) puts it eloquently: How can little girls grow up and want to be something they don't even know exists? It can't just be that women don't want to be writers for late night - more likely that they don't even realize this is open to them. And well, that's because it kind of isn't.

I know lots of funny women. Really good, snarky, biting comedy coming out of women. We can think of a few mainstream ones - Sarah Silverman, Margaret Cho, and all my favorite women from SNL (for decades!), and women like Sarah Haskins, the coolest woman ever - but in general, comedy is man's territory. Just think of….everything.

But to lighten things up, here's a post on feministing about funny women - check the comments for everyone's recommendations
And here's a funny song about how feminists have no sense of humor (boo hoo hoo)

I'm not sure I've got it figured out though - why is "funny" just for the dudes? I'm not sure I see the connection. Comment with your hypothesis!

Ruben Diaz Sr: No to gay marriage, but it's nothing personal

This past week, Governor Paterson urged the NY state senate to finally vote on a gay marriage bill. On Tuesday, when I didn't get any news all day, I wasn't sure what had happened - but after a quick Google News search, I learned that the state senate had, once again, moved the vote to a later date. (Since Tuesday, Paterson says the bill will pass in upcoming weeks)

My Google search also brought me to this article, profiling Rubén Díaz Sr., a state senator representing New York's 32nd District which includes parts of the Bronx. It details how he is a Democrat who is adamantly against gay marriage, and says it's "nothing personal." His religion is what leads him to say he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and he makes it clear that he loves gay people and has lots of family and friends that are gay.

This New York Times article astutely (although in an unavoidably partisan way) points out the incongruities in Díaz's argument, and shows how radical he seems - in saying that the Gay Games would spread AIDS, and opposing the expansion of the Harvey Milk School. He also said that stem cell research is worse than Hitler making bars of soap out of the ashes of Jews - The NY Times obviously uses that to demonize and radicalize Diaz (rightfully so?).

I'm not sure I take issue with the way this story was reported - I understand that a newspaper can't necessarily take sides and say that gay marriage is good and ought to happen - and I understand that the reporter can't just come out and say "The personal IS political!" and throw his hands up. But this senator and his beliefs definitely need more attention and more scrutiny.

Díaz directly points to his acceptance of gay friends and says "So how could I be a homophobe?" As if to say "Look at me! I have gay friends so that means I don't think there's anything wrong with gay people!" But if this was indeed the case, and he didn't think there was anything wrong with gay people and the idea of gayness, there wouldn't be any reason not to support gay marriage. Being cordial and friendly to gay people isn't an excuse for actively lobbying to restrict their rights.

In 1994, when he spoke out against the Gay Games, Díaz said "the games could lead children 'to conclude that if there are so many gay and lesbian athletes then there is nothing wrong, nor any risks involved.'" If he actually had no problems with his gay friends, and loved them (not in that pitying, patronizing 'let me help you' way), this quote would've never been uttered.

I'm not sure it's enough to point out the conflict raised by Díaz excuse of "it's nothing personal" because obviously, it is. Restricting rights is always personal - He might think it's politics or religion, but this is people, people's rights, people's lives, people's love that we're saying is invalid. Of course it's personal.

Here's the article again, take a look - and then comment your opinion!

Legalizing gay marriage in Maine

Tomorrow, November 3rd 2009, the state of Maine will vote to decide whether to repeal a gay-marriage bill that would be implemented to law in may of 2010. This is a huge deal because if voters decide to essentially provide equality in regard to marriage, it will be the first time ever gay-activists in the U.S. will have defeated the ballot box.

*What are your predictions on how this will play out?

* Do you think gay couples in the U.S. will ever be seen as " equally normal" to heterosexual couples?

* If voters in Maine vote in favor of gay marriage could this potentially start a trend for even more states to do the same?