Whiteness in the Handmaid's Tale

I came across a thread on twitter about race in The Handmaid's Tale that is very contrary to how we've talked about the novel in class and how I have thought about it in my recent blog posts. I thought the threat by Mikki Kendall (@Karnythia on Twitter) was something every fan of the novel should think about so I'm going to retype the Tweets below:

"The incredible whiteness of Handmaid's Tale has left me completely underinvested in watching it or rereading it."

"Also if the worst you can imagine is a reality where your children are stolen & you are subjugated...well white feminism lets talk."

"Handmaid's Tale had more of an impact before I knew about reproductive tourism & how transracial adoption can be trafficking in some cases"

"I don't know, the all white dystopia framework bothers me on so many levels."

"It requires me to believe that not only are my people gone, but often that they vanished quietly without any real resistance. As if."

"Like...Black people did not survive slavery, Jim Crow & the War on Drugs to be taken out by a handful of white boys with guns."

"Realistically no community of color in America would go down without a fight & frankly we would band together to win."

"White middle class women might not be ready to knuckle up. But...that means get your weight up. Stop projecting."

"Even the first time I read it I couldn't understand Offred's passiveness. And I was 13. Her logic was very "White girl in horror movie"

""I can't go to my job, access money or vote anymore. I'll just wait here & hope" NOPE. You leave when shit starts going left."

"Also hi, this myth that inner cities are full of cowards that won't fight...beloved that is all these folks do. That's how they survive."

"There's a scene where Offred sees a Black woman in passing & describes her hopeless stare & cheap clothes & well..."

"A community of Black people facing oppression fights back. So do Latinx, Asian & Indigenous communities. And poor white communities"

"That's not projection. That's American history. We know flour can be used to make a bomb for a reason. So the lack of rebels bugs me"

"Realistically the women would be poisoning the men & blowing up their homes long before any new framework could be established."

"You can fight a whole rebellion with household supplies in a pinch....I just got a plot bunny. DAMN IT"

Okay, so those are all her tweets on the subject. I have to confess I hadn't thought about the novel like that all until reading her thoughts, but they make a lot of sense. It does seem somewhat racist and counter-intuitive to me that the majority of black Americans would essentially be forced back into a type of slavery by being Marthas or working in the colonies - realistically those people would never give in that easily. Atwood is not concerned with how her dystopian world impacts people of color, she focuses so wholly on the impact towards white women while largely ignoring the many other stories. Part of this is surely because she wrote the novel in the 1980s, but that doesn't mean she should not be criticized for it.

The Hulu show has clearly tried to make the show more intersectional (not that they would use that word since the show shies away from feminist language) - since in the show Luke and Moira are black as well as other minor characters. However, Rita is still black, which matters too. I still think the world and story Atwood created are important and somewhat feminist, however there is clearly more criticism needed by black feminists and scholars. Any discussion of The Handmaid's Tale as a seminal feminist text ought to include a discussion of how the novel fails people of color, especially women, by failing to tell their stories and underestimating how easily their communities would be destroyed and repressed.

Being Scared of the F-Word

I lied, I'm not done talking about Handmaid's Tale thinkpieces yet. Perhaps the most important one written since the show came out is from MTV News' Rachel Handler called "On the Handmaid' Tale, Bernie Sanders, and Feminism." Handler was prompted to write the piece after watching the cast and creators of the Hulu show at the Tribeca Film Festival go out of their way to avoid calling the show a feminist project. 


Handler was disturbed and disappointed by this, especially considering Margaret Atwood herself has shied away from calling her story feminist in numerous interviews. Handler wrote: "What struck me instead was the haunting notion that we've reached a point in history where an explicitly political, feminist work of art must be depoliticized and downplayed for fear of alienating the men who might feel excluded by it."

Many writers and commentators are forgiving the cast, creators, and Atwood for their refusal to discuss the OBVIOUS feminist and political themes of the story, but Handler's refusal to allow this dilution of the meaning is important. Hollywood has a long, established habit of this type of practice since drawing large audiences for projects is more important than appearing feminist or diverse. On this, Handler points out that "stories about men have always been viewed as status quo "human stories," while stories about women, or people of color, or queer people have always been viewed as "stories about women, or people of color, or queer people," forcing their casts to go on the defensive."

Here, it's hard to blame the cast since they want the project to be successful and therefore don't want to 'alienate' potential fans who would shy away if the project was marketed as FEMINIST. But at the same time we have to hold them accountable since the show is absolutely feminist judging from its themes and message. Another quote from the Handler piece I this that I really thought was important was: "Words matter, whether you're living in a dystopia or your basic plutocracy, and in Gilead, language has been bent into both a weapon and an unsolicited shield. The Republic subjects its people to unspeakable horrors by coating them in euphemism, in inaccurate language that obscures the true nature of what's being done to them. Terrified silence and linguistic obfuscation are the twin pillars that bolster the patriarchal dystopia." I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. 

Another Margaret Atwood Link....

I'll start writing about other topics again, but first one more Atwood link! She did an interview with the New Yorker Radio Hour, I believe it was last week. I haven't gotten a chance to listen to the Podcast episode yet but I heard it was really good. She talks about how realistic The Handmaid's Tale is.

Also, I got Hulu just to do the free trial and watch the show. I've seen the first two episodes already (SPOILERS) and it's fantastic so far! There are small changes to the book's plot that I've noticed, but nothing that seems out of character or like it doesn't fit with the world Atwood created. The real triumph of the show is how effectively it conveys the mood and themes of the story. The cinematography, lighting, set and all the smallest details are eerily perfect. My favorite thing about how they've paced the show so far is how there are periods of an episode that are *almost* boring where we get to know Offred's world, but nothing much is really happening, leaving you anxious until the next horrifying thing happens. That feeling of slight boredom, with an underlying dread would be exactly what the handmaids must feel, so the fact that the show conveys the same feeling is really cool.

Margaret Atwood Poem

This isn't as related to feminism/the class as what I usually post, but I wanted to share it anyways. I came across this Margaret Atwood poem online the other day and it's really beautiful (copied from www.poets.org)

Variation on the Word Sleep
Margaret Atwood, 1939

 I would like to watch you sleeping,
which may not happen.
I would like to watch you,
sleeping. I would like to sleep
with you, to enter
your sleep as its smooth dark wave
slides over my head

and walk with you through that lucent
wavering forest of bluegreen leaves
with its watery sun & three moons
towards the cave where you must descend,
towards your worst fear

I would like to give you the silver
branch, the small white flower, the one
word that will protect you
from the grief at the center
of your dream, from the grief
at the center. I would like to follow
you up the long stairway
again & become
the boat that would row you back
carefully, a flame
in two cupped hands
to where your body lies
beside me, and you enter
it as easily as breathing in

I would like to be the air
that inhabits you for a moment
only. I would like to be that unnoticed
& that necessary.


From Selected Poems II: 1976-1986 by Margaret Atwood. Copyright © 1987 by Margaret Atwood. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

"There's a Special Place in Hell..."

DONT READ THIS POST UNTIL YOU'VE FINISHED THE HANDMAID'S TALE - SPOILERS!

I've been reading the many fascinating new thinkpieces and show reviews about The Handmaid's Tale as it's about to come out on Hulu, and two worth mentioning were in the New Republic and The Atlantic. Both the New Republic thinkpiece and the Atlantic review of the Hulu show made me think of that famous, often criticized Madeleine Albright quote "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."

I thought of that quote because the authors of both articles play with the idea that the most vicious villains in The Handmaid's Tale are the women, not the men, referring to Serena Joy and the Aunts. The Atlantic piece states: The complicity of many wealthy women in the tyranny of Gilead is another aspect of the show that sharpens its topical relevance, particularly after an election in which a majority of white women voted against a female president. But casting women as co-oppressors in the novel, Atwood told me, was merely another way of remixing history. “They’re the roles that women have always played,” she said. If someone were creating Gilead from scratch, she said, the most intuitive thing to do would be to enlist women in the policing of it, offering them limited power over other women. “There are always takers for that.”

Sarah Jones, a former devout Christian who left the church partly because she read Atwood's book, in the brilliant New Republic essay writes: Serena Joy chose her life. Lydia is empowered to attack other women with a cattle prod. Both are proof that women are represented in Gilead’s power structure. If feminism is only about representation, choice, or some vaguely sketched notion of empowerment, it is difficult to say our Serena Joys and our Aunt Lydias are not feminists.

However, a few lines later Jones expands on this idea: A form of feminism that celebrates power for power’s sake, instead of interrogating how it is concentrated and distributed, will usher us into fascism. Feminism means something. Some choices oppress the women who make them, and some beliefs, if enforced, would oppress everyone else, too. Allow an antichoice woman to call herself a feminist, and you have ceded political territory that you cannot afford to lose. Stripped of political meaning, “feminist” becomes an entirely subjective term that anyone with any agenda can use.

In other words, individual women who have social power, agency, and decision-making abilities are not necessarily 'feminist'. The definition ought to be more complex and inclusive than that, or there's no point. (This connects to our class discussion a while ago about consumerist feminism and the rise of a culture focusing on the individual over social structures as damaging to feminism). The more we broaden the definition, the less it means, the less powerful it is, and the more repression we allow to creep into the so-called idea of feminism.

As much as I agree with both essays, (and with the sentiment behind Albright's quote, for the most part), something has been nagging at me about their argument that the female oppressors in Atwood's story are the worst. It seems almost un-feminist to engage in this classic act of blaming the females and holding them once again to a higher moral standard than the male oppressors. Of course Aunt Lydia and Serena Joy are despicable for their compliance and participation in this system and its creation, but they are trying to survive in a world with no options.

One of the most fascinating parts of the book to me is the historical note at the end where we receive some background on the creation of Gilead. Specifically on page 306, Atwood refers to the "top-secret Sons of Jacob Think Tanks, at which the philosophy and social structure of Gilead were hammered out." This really struck me the first time I read the book, since as a student of political science I couldn't stop thinking, 'holy sh*t, if a bunch of male religious leaders, academics, and politicians wanted to violently overthrow the US government and turn this into a authoritarian theocracy, it would totally start with a freaking think tank.' Seriously.

And I'm sure those Sons of Jacob meetings where the structure was decided would not have included any women. The Aunts and other women allowed to have some power were let in later in the process, most likely, and fooled into thinking they were part of the elite. To a point they were, but Serena Joy and the Aunts by virtue of their gender were never really trusted. That was the whole point after all.

There are a lot of complex ideas in the book and in Jones' essay and I'm still thinking them all through and making connections. The world of The Handmaid's Tale is complicated and filled with moral gray area, and so is feminism itself. Perhaps that's why the sentiment 'there's a special place in hell for women that don't help other women' rings true at first but also makes me a bit uncomfortable with its simplicity and implied moral absolutism.

Is there really no place in feminism or women's activism for pro-life women? What about women who wrote in Bernie Sanders in the general election because they genuinely believe Hillary Clinton was more dangerous than Trump? How comfortable should liberal feminists be in attacking and tearing down conservative women and how productive is that anyway? I don't know any of those answers, but I won't stop thinking about the questions.

Objectivity in Science and the Liberal Arts Core

When I saw this tweet, I thought it was really important and something worth putting on the blog. It reminded me of the chapter we read on the history of women's bodies. People assume that medicine and science are logical, unbiased disciplines, but in reality doctors and scientists are subject to the same societal structures and systems of oppression as everyone else. Doctors and scientists are products of a world that has systemically promoted sexist and racist ideas and practices, and pretending otherwise is extremely dangerous. It's important not to let these parts of our society off the hook. Unfortunately, when people in the humanities or social sciences make this critique of science or medicine, the critique is often ignored despite its validity.

The women's bodies chapter as well as Pushed relate this idea to medical practices, both historically and contemporarily, in interesting ways. For instance, the gendered aspects of maternity care as outlined in Pushed were not accidental. As technology progressed and the medical field became more established and powerful (and it was always male controlled since men had the access to education and research) - it pushed its way into childbirth. Midwives lost their influence to doctors because most people did not question medicine. The word of doctors and scientists is seen as unbiased fact by many people and this should definitely be questioned more.

Many students complain about Manhattan College's extensive liberal arts core and the fact that even business/engineering students have to take multiple liberal arts classes. I'd argue that more schools should have similar requirements, so that these students have historical context for what they are taught about science/economics/etc. In fact, I believe it would be helpful if the requirements went beyond just the general 150 classes, since those survey courses aren't taken seriously by many students. The classes that truly changed my perspective and taught me entirely new things were the Sociology/Psychology/History/Religion classes that I took either for Women and Gender Studies or for Global/Non-Western credit. "Niche" classes like my Catholic labor studies course, Race and Resistance, Genocide and Racism, and Psych of Women were the most important, yet those are only taken by the liberal arts students who seek them out. That should change, so that students who major in biology, pre-med, finance, and so on have an understanding of the complicated and often hidden histories behind their fields that they might otherwise never be exposed to.

Netflix's new Show 'Dear White People'

I want to share a trailer for a new Netflix original show that looks awesome and relates to the themes of the class. The first 10 episodes come out on April 28 and the Hollywood Reporter describes it as, "Lionsgate's Dear White People follows a group of Winchester University students of color as they navigate a diverse landscape of social injustice, cultural bias, political correctness (or lack thereof) and sometimes misguided activism in the millennial age. Set against the backdrop of a predominantly white Ivy League university, where racial tensions bubble just below the surface, Dear White People is described as being a hilarious send-up of "post-racial" America that weaves together the universal story of finding one's own identity and forging a wholly unique path."

The main character is a woman of color and the show definitely deals with issues related to feminism, racism, and the political tensions present on even the most liberal college campuses today. I can't wait to watch! Link to the trailer. The show has already received tons of backlash even though it hasn't come out yet, and the trailer on Youtube elicited a lot of negative reactions with people furious over the "politically correct" themes.

Cecile Richards Podcast Interview

Here is a link to listen online to the interview Ezra Klein of Vox did with Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood that I mentioned in class.

(It's also available in the Podcasts App if you search for the Ezra Klein Show and then scroll back a bit). 

The episode is a few weeks old now I believe, but still very relevant. Personally, I most enjoyed the time Richards took to explain how her career evolved. Her mother was Governor of Texas and Richards became involved with labor organizing at the start of her career. The most informative part of the interview was her explanation of how PP is funded. Most of the public has no idea that it operates just like every other hospital and healthcare facility, which is such a shame. The deliberate campaign on the right to politicize PP (which is just a healthcare provider like anyone else!!) is truly disgusting and negatively impacts the lives of people just trying to access affordable healthcare. If more people took the time to learn *how* things like this worked, organizations like Planned Parenthood wouldn't be seen by so many misinformed people as a villain. 

Obviously, the interview focuses on PP, but the principle applies to so much else. If voters had a more nuanced understanding of not just women's healthcare, but also other topics that politicians and the media try to convince people are bad or dangerous (Islam, US foreign aid, trade deficits, etc. etc.) we would all be so much better off. All political issues are complex and we need to be more wary of over-simplified talking points, especially from right wing media hacks. The Cecile Richards interview is so great but it makes me sad since so many people would never listen to her speak. Why are so many Americans so susceptible to bullshit and so adverse to seeking out unbiased truth? 

The War Against Women in Healthcare and Tech

I have two feminist-y things to rant about. As I'm sure you know, the House of Representatives is currently deciding whether or not it's going to pass the AHCA as their promised repeal and replace plan for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Some of my favorite political commentators have referred to the Republican plan as "repeal and go f*ck yourself", which though blunt seems pretty accurate. Ironically, the original version of the bill would be most dangerous for people who are more likely to support Republicans: older people in rural areas. On a recent episode of The Weeds, one of my favorite podcasts about public policy, one of the hosts actually said that the type of person who would get the best healthcare for the lowest amount of money under this plan would be "a 21 year old person living and working in New York City." That literally describes me (provided of course I get a job after graduation, that is. This is because urban areas have more hospitals/clinics/doctor's offices and the increased competition lowers prices as compared to rural areas, and the AHCA is cheaper for younger, healthier people to incentivize more of them to join markets while pushing older, sicker people (aka people who most need healthcare?!!?!?) out of markets since it is more expensive to ensure them. 

Of course, I don't support this plan. Premiums will go up for everyone, healthcare markets will become dangerously unstable, coverage will still be worse than under Obamacare. And on a moral level, if I have a job and make a living wage I would rather pay more every year for my healthcare if it ensured an overall better system. I don't mind paying a bit more so that an elderly man can get his medication, or so a child can go to the doctor for regular checkups because healthcare should be a right not a privilege. And when I actually really need healthcare as an older or sicker person, it would be nice to have an established system in place not designed to screw me over. 

Now to the feminist part. The newest version of the bill is even more harmful, especially to women. Essential healthcare benefits like maternity coverage, hospital visits,  and trips to the doctor's office wouldn't be covered. What other parts of healthcare are even left?? And of course, the people making the decisions about this healthcare bill (which is essentially a trojan horse of tax cuts for the wealthy disguised as a healthcare bill) are mostly older white men. The optics of this look awful, as they should. A Vox reporter shared this photo on Twitter yesterday, rightfully enraging people:

It's almost like all these guys don't realize that maternity care is necessary to bring white men into the world?? Someone should let them know. This healthcare thing is just so infuriating because Paul Ryan and his kin keep saying over and over that their plan ensures "access to healthcare for everyone", "access" being the key word. Their point is that the government isn't obligated to make healthcare affordable, merely to make sure everyone TECHNICALLY has access to markets in which they COULD theoretically buy insurance. I just don't understand how as a society we can't agree on the basic fact that if you someone is absolutely unable to afford any sort of insurance, they don't have access to it. That should be common sense. Paul Ryan likes to talk about "open markets" and "freedom" until he's blue in the face, but I think I speak for most rational Americans when I say that I'd rather people have medication and live-saving procedures and cancer screenings than Paul Ryan's deranged philosophies on freedom made into law. Freedom to me means people not dying of treatable illness in a wealthy, supposedly democratic country. Okay, healthcare rant over.               

The other thing I wanted to share was this fascinating article about sexism in the tech industry from The Atlantic titled "Why is Silicon Valley so Awful to Women?" I'm not a tech person so even though the author's findings about widespread discrimination on the basis of gender in the tech industry didn't surprise me, I also didn't know much about the problem before reading the article. The author chronicles the experiences of several successful women in tech and also runs through how various companies have attempted to fix the myriad of problems their female coders, engineers, and marketing executives face. The most frustrating part to me was how one well-meaning approach to make corporate culture more accepting of diversity totally backfired. Some companies started integrating unconscious-bias training into their programs, but instead of showing male employees that they needed to fix their biases, it led to many male employees thinking along the lines of 'if everyone has bias, then this is normal and I don't need to change.' 

Thankfully, the article ends with some kind-of uplifting statistics as many companies like Intel have made positive strides in hiring more women and people of color while working on retention of female employees. But the overall message was still pretty grim. In order for executives at Intel, for example, to take the diversity project seriously, they had to offer financial incentives at bonus time or else the hiring goals wouldn't have been met. The people in charge of hiring at these companies will respond to money, but if they weren't offered that incentive, hiring qualified women for the sake of it would still not appeal to them. One of the women interviewed remarked that it was frustrating that women today still face the same challenges that she faced trying to break into the industry 25 years ago. UGH.                    

Wearing White for the Suffragettes

The other night, when Trump gave his speech to the joint session of Congress, a number of congresswomen wore all white and refused to clap. Presumably, this was an ode to the suffragettes and possibly even to Hillary Clinton who wore white during one of the 2016 debates and for her convention acceptance speech. I couldn't bring myself to listen to Trump's whole speech because his voice makes my eye twitch and my body fill with rage after a few minutes, but seeing the congresswomen in white reminded me of my favorite article from the campaign.

This is where I have to admit that on the last night of the DNC over the summer when Hillary accepted the nomination I actually shed a few tears. Granted, I had had several glasses of wine. I teared up. It took me by surprise how meaningful it was to me to have a woman make it that far on the road to being president. Even though she is far from a perfect person or candidate, the symbolism and struggle really meant something to me. I tried to explain it to my boyfriend at the time who was watching with me and thought I was being absolutely ridiculous, but there was no way to even begin explaining to him what I felt. Sympathy and empathy are not the same thing and no white man has ever known a different world than one where every President (save one) that they've ever saw or listened to or heard about has looked like them. They have no point of reference and cannot imagine how much it could mean to see living proof on a stage that an actual person of your gender could for the first time in this country's history get to lead it.

Anyways. After the DNC speech, an op-ed writer at the Washington Post wrote a parody of Hillary's speech that at the time I thought was the greatest thing ever written. Some feminists and/or Hillary supporters didn't like the sarcasm or something about it, but I really loved it for whatever reason. I read it like 5 times and laughed until I had tears in my eyes. The women in white at Trump's speech reminded me of that article from July so I found it again and the rereading in the wake of the election results was a very different experience than reading it back in July had been. All the jokes about a woman president sting now and make me feel hopeless. I often think about how ridiculously difficult it was for Hillary to get so far, how many years, how much money and effort and coordination and gradually moving up it took. And how little time in took Donald Trump. It's entirely feasible that another woman won't get as close as she did in my lifetime. Electing a woman to the highest office in America is like a category 5 hurricane happening in a cold water climate or a tornado hitting New York - only very precise and rare conditions could create such a phenomenon and once it happens it isn't likely to come around again for another hundred years or so. I really hope I'm wrong and I certainly want to work in whatever career I end up in to speed up the process of electing more women. But rereading the parody speech this time did not make me laugh. (Here's a link to it if you want to give it a read.)

The Eternal Problem of Mansplaining

I saw this cartoon online and needed to share it. It's from the New Yorker, I believe last week. I found it on Twitter because it went viral when the woman who Tweeted it wrote "Sharing just because it prompted so many men to leave long, angry comments to the New Yorker." Her Twitter feed then proceeded to blow up with thousands of other angry men and their backlash to the message (thus, as frequently happens with mansplaining, proving the point the cartoon was making).

The cartoon is just such a perfect example of mansplaining that the average woman experiences probably at least once a day. The two people in the cartoon are probably supposed to be either friends or on a date, and either way the example works. The man thinks he's doing the right thing by trying to impress the woman with his supposed knowledge about modern art, when in fact by shoving his interpretation on her when she never actually asked for it, he's being benevolently sexist.

If a guy I was on a date with did something like this and I didn't know him well I probably wouldn't even go through the exhausting process of explaining that his comment bothered me and why it did - after all it would be awkward, start an "unnecessary" confrontation, and no doubt either anger or humiliate the guy (they tend really not to like that).

Obviously, the cartoon doesn't depict a Huge Important Moment of Sexism, but this type of experience is far more insidious and universal to the female experience. Tiny moments of men overreaching in conversations or shoving their 'intellect' in the faces of women who would never be socially allowed to do the same construct our understanding of gender and the power dynamics the gender occupies in the world. And if just made me chuckle, since I could picture so many of the men I know doing something like this.

"My Album of the Year is Lemonade"

This week started with an amazing feminist moment when Adele won the Grammy for Album of the Year and subsequently dedicated the award to Beyonce, who she believed should have won for her album "Lemonade." The moment went viral and has been the talk of social media ever since. Even though I am the first person to role my eyes at consumerist/individual-focused/celebrity-obsessed modern feminism, this action by Adele represents so much more than that. The decision to give the award to Adele over Beyonce, despite Beyonce being the popular choice (you might almost say the Academy acted as a sort of electoral college, thwarting what would have been the popular vote, but I digress) - is just another example of institutions failing to evolve. The history of the Grammys, not to mentions the Oscars and all the other major awards shows, is a history of refusing to acknowledge black artists, even when their work was far superior. This is a systemic problem that is so much larger than this one incident.

It was also interesting that the video the of Adele's acceptance speech (see below) uploaded by the Grammys official account does not include the footage of Adele breaking her award and giving half to Beyonce (a la Mean Girls), that part was not televised. Although Adele's speech was partly about Beyonce, her more explicit statement about the award was made to a smaller audience in the Q & A after the show. After the show Adele said: "I felt it was her time to win, my view is kind of like what the f*ck does she have to do to win album of the year." It was crucial that Adele recognized the privilege that led to her work winning this award over Beyonce. As a white woman, her album was far less political and therefore the more traditional choice that the Academy went with. It was amazing for Adele to disavow the decision and explicitly acknowledge the role race must have played in the decision- after all "Lemonade" was an album focused on the black female experience and struggles - however, the fact that Adele waited until after the show to be fully open shows the pressure she was under to still respect the institution.

The respect the two women have for each other as people and artists is so evident when you watch Adele's speech and Beyonce's reaction to it. It reminded me of the point in the Modern Misogyny chapter we read about feminism being good for women. One of the points the author made was that empowered, feminist women do not see themselves merely in competition with other women, but rather build up other women. Adele was doing what she could to accomplish that. It was also a very beautiful moment for women that Adele used her speech to talk about how becoming a mother changed her as a women and an artist. She vocalized the often taboo subject of how hard motherhood is for women who also have careers. (Something Beyonce can undoubtedly relate to as well).

Watching another white-washed awards show was pretty disheartening, but Adele's embrace of (intersectional) feminism by standing up for Beyonce was at least a great moment to witness. Who knows, maybe the Oscars will decide to get progressive this year . . .

2 Dope Queens: Civil Rights Phoebe

I listened to episode 18 of the 2 Dope Queens podcast, "Civil Rights Phoebe." The episode was originally from October. It featured comedians Jackie Kashian and Jacqueline Novak. The podcast is definitely a work of feminism since it unapologetically champions women's voices and stories and offers a place for pro-women comedy and conversation.

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the comedians featured on the show, but the part I liked most about this episode was Phoebe and Jessica's banter about time travel. They were discussing how people like to entertain the question "if you could time travel to any period in the past, where would you go" and how that hypothetical really only works for white people, especially men. Basically, what they said was that this question ignores structures of privilege. It would be unpleasant at best and dangerous at worst for a black women to travel back to virtually any period in history because women and people of color never had more rights or freedom at any point than they do now, although the situation is still far from equal, obviously.

This analysis of a seemingly harmless hypothetical seems obvious, but I had never thought about it before. Truthfully, if someone asked me what time in the past I would choose to visit, I also would be stumped. Even as a white women, I have no desire to live in a past decade or especially century. Between workplace discrimination, general lack of respect, and rape culture - even living in the 60s or 70s is not appealing. I can only speak for how hard living in the past would be as a women and not as a person of color so listening to Jessica and Phoebe's take was really worthwhile.

Feminism & Public Education

I've been thinking a lot about the role early education plays in the development of citizens as feminists or not. And not just as feminists, but also as thoughtful and moral people. This is a relevant topic since just moments ago it was announced that the President's contentious pick for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, will be confirmed with VP Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. There are more than a few immediate concerns that arise from this. The Center for American Progress wrote on Twitter just now, "For the GOP Senate majority, $4 million in donations from Betsy DeVos and her family spoke louder than the voice of 100ks of constituents." In this new era where corruption in politics is able to exist so blatantly and openly and yet thrive, it will be even harder to raise the next generations with the old-fashioned American ideals of honesty and integrity. The new head of all America's public schools bought this position and has no experience or expertise in education, let alone any earthly understanding of how to effectively manage a huge government bureaucracy. That in itself is sickening, but what does it have to do with feminism?

I believe we discussed briefly in class the idea that a lot of what we learn in middle and high school about racism, sexism, and these more complex oppressive structures in society is extremely limited. Taking one's first few liberal arts courses in college is a jarring and rewarding experience, it feels a lot like unlearning the oversimplified and sometimes outright dangerous preconceived notions that the public education system taught you in English or social studies classes. I never thought complexly about structural racism, feminist identity, or systems of oppression before coming to Manhattan College - now these ideas are inherent to my understanding of the world and my place in it.

As feminists and social justice advocates, a key goal should be ensuring that children are educated at an earlier and earlier level about these complex issues so that college doesn't have to require so much un-learning. And crucially, access to education about structural inequalities is in itself often elitist and classist since someone who has no opportunities to afford a pricey liberal arts higher education may never learn the true significance of them at all. It's a dark day for our country when a woman who does not even believe in the goals of having free and quality public education is now the supposed protector of that system.

How much further behind will our schools and our students (the voters of tomorrow) fall during this administration? Will abstinence-only education become the law of the land and cause even more damage to the lives of uninformed young women and men at a time when funding for contraceptions and access to legal abortion is also in jeopardy? How many history classes will be allowed or encouraged to teach from textbooks that sugarcoat SLAVERY - ensuring that the next generations of Americans have an inherently wrong understanding of racism in this country? How will we ever deal with income inequality between races and socioeconomic classes when more funding will be spent on private charter schools for a minority of students, but the majority of kids in underfunded schools (with the worst being in communities with primarily immigrants and people of color) will be without a solution?

The privatization of America is a scary concept because so often privatization comes with an agenda so foreign to morality and supposed American ideals of meritocracy, and no where is this more dangerous than our education system. If there is anything we should fight to make more equal it is our education system. Through education we can create empowered, thoughtful, historically-aware, and even feminist citizens. Or we can continue to waste that opportunity. Education is a feminist issue, and the confirmation of Betsy DeVos is a feminist nightmare we most continue to oppose.

This reminds me of one of the best quotes from my all-time favorite TV show The West Wing, a quote about education from the character Sam Seaborn that says, "Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes. . . . Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense." Well, we can dream.

Intersectional Feminism

Last week's Women's March inspired countless feminist articles, signs, speeches, and other content. Like many other feminists (and Americans) I found it comforting to see so many people speaking out publicly and loudly for equality and justice. As I go back and constantly my favorite videos from the marches, I keep coming back to the short talk Feminista Jones gave at the Philadelphia Women's March about the oppressive nature of white feminism and the lack of credit given to black feminists and other feminists of color who do so much work in the movement.

You can watch it here.

Her honesty and willingness to be blunt really affected me because her message is so important. Basically, she made the point that black women overwhelming voted for Hillary Clinton as opposed to Donald Trump, while many white women actually supported Trump. Too many white women were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt despite his hateful campaign promises and rhetoric because they took their security and privilege for granted. She says now that the nation is mobilizing and resisting for women's rights and other equality issues against the new Administration, maybe black feminists will be heard more equally. Intersectional feminism and prioritizing voices other than white voices will be essential as we move forward trying to achieve political advancement of feminist goals.

One of her most powerful lines was: "We sent you to the moon and we have been the model for freedom and liberation and have had our labor and our grace thrown in our face, but you will listen now." She's obviously referencing the movie Hidden Figures here, but her use of the word 'grace' also makes me think of Michelle Obama. No matter how poised Mrs. Obama always was, critics were always harsher on her (her muscular arms, her "anger", her nutrition program for children) than they were of previous first ladies. To me, Jones is saying that lack of appreciation for black feminists and a lack of unification of women of all backgrounds to fight for the same goals was just one cause of the situation America finds itself in today. Therefore, the way forward is to create a more inclusive and therefore more powerful feminist movement.

She ends her speech with quotes from brilliant black women throughout history. Especially applicable are Coretta Scott King's words "Women, if the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul." That was what the women's march was - women and the men who support feminism standing up to become a soul for a country that is desperately in need of one right now. Since the march, there have been huge nationwide protests at airports and other locations in support of immigrant and Muslim rights that promote the same message. Intersectional feminism is more powerful than a feminism that is narrowly focused on only one group of people, and more just. And intersectional feminism relates to the fight for refugees and immigrants too.

There will be more rallies and marches undoubtedly in the near future and Jones' speech reminded me of how careful feminists must be to constantly improve our own movement and correct mistakes from the past as we move forward.