Transracial...Is that a Thing?

Spoiler alert: No.

I’m not writing about Dolezal; I want to discuss whether transracial is a legitimate concept.

(Disclaimer: I understand that transracial has long been used to describe children adopted by parents of another race. For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to use the term to refer to the idea of self-identifying with another race.)

This train of thought got started when I saw a Facebook post that said something like, “Ugh…transracial? Really?” My first reaction was to agree. But then I thought of two things. First was Caitlyn Jenner. She self-identifies as a woman; can't a white person self-identify as a black person? Second was a recent conversation I had about race as a purely social (as opposed to biological) construct.

Those thoughts led me to wonder whether I dismissed transracialism too quickly. I’m no sociologist, but I did take an introductory sociology course as a college freshman, so I’m pretty much a sociologist. As such, I understand the idea that neither race nor gender is based on genetics. Both are social constructs. Ethnicity and sex, however, are not purely social constructs.

Race and Gender—Social Constructs

As I understand it, African American is an ethnicity that refers to Americans of largely African descent. Some may narrow the definition to only those descended from slaves. “Black” refers broadly to a culture shared by African Americans who are fully assimilated into a particular subset of American culture.

Gender is a similar concept. At the risk of being accused of not giving gender its due, I’ll sum it up like this: gender refers to behaviors and attitudes that mainstream society associates with a particular sex. Boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls. Not because of genetics, but because parents buy trucks for their sons.

Simplistic (and probably flawed) definitions, but I hope that they work.

It’s a subtle distinction, but maybe this will help clear it up: I’m currently reading Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (great book, great author). She’s from Nigeria. If she’s granted US citizenship, she’s an African American. But she didn’t share in the experience of black Americans. The novel is about a woman who emigrates here from Nigeria and must “grapple with what it means to be black for the first time.” Her genetics didn’t change, but she wasn’t black until she got to America. It’s related to questions of Obama’s blackness. Some feel that because of his upbringing, he doesn’t truly know what it means to be black in America. He is undeniably an African American, but some question his blackness.

(Dolezal is clearly aware of the distinction. When asked by Matt Lauer whether she’s African American, she nodded her head yes and said, “I identify as black.”)

Oppression and Self-Identification

An integral part of the black experience is oppression, both historically and currently.So is it even possible for a nonblack person to truly share in, not just commiserate with, that experience?

Nope.

It’s possible for a white person to get it (to an extent). But getting it is not the same as experiencing it. In America, white people simply don’t know what it’s like for society—not just individuals—to discriminate against you because of your skin color. And don't cry about affirmative action. All other things equal, you're better off in this country if you're white.

But wait. We elected Obama, so racism is dead, right? The ability to not think about race is one of the great perks of white privilege. White privilege doesn’t mean that white people get everything handed to them or that the KKK secretly controls America and keeps blacks down. But let me ask you this, white folk (courtesy of Americanah): How many times have you worried that your race would keep you from getting a loan? Have you ever worried that you’d get pulled over for being white? Do you expect to see mostly nonwhite people when you open a magazine? You can’t simply self-identify with that kind of experience. You have to, you know, experience it.

Of course, that raises the question of whether such experience is necessary for a male (sex) to self-identify as a woman (gender). Frankly, if I were a woman, I think I’d say that yes, it is. I fully support LGBT rights, but I wouldn’t hold it against a woman for believing that experiencing sexism is an essential part of womanhood. But why do we (myself included) accept the transgender concept so much more readily than that of transracial?

I think that at least part of the answer is culture. I would say that the difference in the experiences of a white man and a white woman is not as extreme as that of a black woman and a white woman.  The feminist would probably say that sexism just doesn’t get the attention it deserves, and the poor-white-people guy would say that black people just want to pull the race card, but I still think that it’s an important factor.

Oh, and that whole blackface thing always makes it pretty awkward when white people pretend to be black…

Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder

This is my first post in nearly two years. I fell off for a variety of reasons. The two most significant are probably laziness and the feeling that, given the sheer number of opinions out there, I can't come up with anything that hasn't already been said. The latter may be true, but I've decided to (try to) not care. And shout out to Keith for helping convince me to dust off my keyboard.

So. A lot's happened over the last two years. What's bothered me enough to get off my ass and complain about it? Glad you asked. Yesterday, I was asked, "Did you see the pictures of Caitlyn Jenner? She's beautiful, isn't she?" I said no. I was then asked, "Are you anti-transgender people?"

So because I, a 27-year-old,  don't find a 65-year-old transgender woman attractive, I'm prejudiced? I was pretty insulted. And frankly, I think that women and transgender people should be too. To paraphrase some article I saw, it's funny how Bruce Jenner was praised for his Olympic achievements, but Caitlyn Jenner is praised only for her looks.

Yes, a lot of people are calling her courageous, but most of the comments I've seen are related to her appearance. And though I recognize the impact on the LGBT community, I question how much courage it takes for a millionaire celebrity to do this. It takes infinitely more courage for some nobody from Alabama to make such a decision. This praise for Jenner might even be harmful. It's similar to the belief that because Obama was elected, racism and oppression no longer exist.

I was similarly bothered by all the hubbub over the "courage" Angelina Jolie showed when she decided to have her breasts removed because she was at an increased risk for breast cancer. When you can afford to have the surgery (and to have a world-class plastic surgeon give you implants), it seems like a no-brainer to me.

But I digress. I think that every human has the right to do just about whatever they want to their body, but I want to talk about the leap from my saying that Jenner's not good-looking to the assumption that I'm prejudiced against transgender people. Such logic is born of two phenomena.

The first is the crippling fear so many Americans have of being politically incorrect. (For the record, I am not one of those political-correctness-is-killing-society people.) I think that a lot of people have a subconscious fear of being labeled a bigot if they don't let everyone know how beautiful they think Jenner is. I'm reminded of a chapter from Adichie's Americanah that describes some rich Main Line woman who always refers to African women as beautiful or stunning, even when the main character, a Nigerian woman, the women simply are not attractive. Or the "big is beautiful" idea. If you're happy with the way you look, I'm happy for you. But I'm not attracted to overweight woman. (Nor am I especially attracted to super-skinny women. Thigh gaps are kinda weird.) You can't choose your sexual orientation, so why am I expected to alter my opinion on what constitutes beauty?

The second phenomenon is the fact that it makes a lot of people feel warm and fuzzy inside when they write a Facebook post about it. "See how progressive and accepting I am!" These are probably the same people who changed their profile pictures to an equal sign in support of gay marriage but couldn't be bothered to let their elected representatives (i.e., the people in a position to actually change the marriage laws) know how they feel.

I know that beauty is subjective. If you really think Jenner is beautiful, that's fine. She's just not my cup of tea. That doesn't make me a bigot.

Is the Pope Catholic?

Shout out to Donnie for getting me off my lazy cyber ass.

Believe it or not, I am not always an unbiased observer. But I'm pretty sure I've come up with a fairly objective way to criticize Pope Francis' recent "support" of gay priests.

Let's start with this: even before Francis' revolutionary statements, the official Church position was that being gay is not a sin (though any homosexual activity is). A gay man can still fully adhere to the tenets of Catholicism; there's no reason to prevent them donning the frock in the first place. So what is so praiseworthy about what the pope said? He essentially just reiterated Church teaching. I seem to remember John Paul II being put up on a pedestal for a similarly pointless statement, saying Jews are not guilty of deicide. Of course, this magnanimity came decades after the Church had already graciously withdrew that charge. (Yes, it took almost 2,000 years for the Catholic Church to officially declare that they no longer held Jews responsible for executing Jesus.) Francis' supporters may bring up the fact that Benedict had barred gay men from becoming priests, but he was a dick. All Francis has done so far is be less of a dick.

So what's the big deal? Is simply treating human beings as such really that admirable? Shouldn't one have to do just a little bit more than the bare minimum in order to earn our adoration? And speaking of the bare minimum, why is everyone so impressed by his apparent humility? One of the best-known passages in the Bible is Matthew 5:5: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." Sure, it might be a big deal for an average person to come close to living up to Jesus' philosophy, but shouldn't that simply be expected of the pope? It's like giving the president a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing. (See what I did there?) Can't we take it for granted that the pope will do what his god told him to? (Well, except for those things that his god apparently changed his mind about, like eating kosher and stoning adulterers.)

A leader ought to be exceptional, and his followers should expect nothing less. On the bright side, at least America isn't the only country settling for mediocrity.

German Bishops to Congregation: "Pay Up or Go to Hell"

I have to be careful with this one; I'm afraid I'm going to have an aneurysm before I finish.

The German Catholic Church is essentially excommunicating members of the Church who don't pay a church tax.

Apparently, several European countries have already been levying church taxes, ranging from  about 4%-9% of one's income tax, on registered members of certain faiths and giving that revenue to their respective religious institution (after being paid a service charge for collecting the tax, of course). Some smaller religious communities collect the tax themselves. The obvious way around this is to tell the government that you're no longer a member of that faith and then practice it anyway, which is what many people have been doing.

Most of the religious institutions that benefit from this tax have not pursued those who practice their faith without paying the tax. But the Catholic Church in Germany will not stand for tax evasion! Render unto Caesar, damnit!

Last week, German bishops officially declared that "those who lack solidarity bid farewell to the community of believers" and will be forbidden from receiving sacraments. The Church hasn't outright said that those who don't pay the tax will be excommunicated, but I don't see much of a difference. Those who have been excommunicated are also barred from receiving sacraments, which the Church holds are necessary for salvation. The Church has to officially lift the excommunication in order for one to be accepted back into the flock; I don't know if such a formal recognition is required to lift the ban that results from not paying the tax.
Incidentally, it should be noted that the Church's rhetoric is (ironically) reminiscent of Pope John Paul II's  call for solidarity with the poor; it seems the Church is trying to implicitly use the memory of the popular John Paul II to legitimize this decision.

Now, aside from being a dick move, I think this is literally sinful. There is an act called simony, which the Catholic Encyclopedia defines as "'a deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of [sic] annexed unto spirituals'. While this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simoniacal." It goes on to say that "The various temporal advantages which may be offered for a spiritual favour [include] the munus a manu (material advantage), which comprises money...The spiritual object includes whatever is conducive to the eternal welfare of the soul, i.e. all supernatural things: sanctifying grace, the sacraments, sacramentals, etc." The Catholic Church generally considers this an extremely serious offense.

Now, the majority of Church income comes from this tax. So some will argue that any organization needs money to survive. But are magnificent cathedrals, innumerable acres of property, and billions of dollars in cash really necessary for the Church to perform its spiritual duty? As far as I can recall, the Christian god doesn't demand a payment in exchange for his grace. And there has almost always been a grassroots version of Catholicism that advocates a return to the simpler ways of early Christianity. I suspect their ranks in Germany may begin to increase.

So how the hell do they expect to get away with this? Well, the Church has convinced believers that its own interpretation of scripture alone is legitimate. When you convince people that you hold the keys to Heaven, you can get away with just about anything. This is probably why the Church resisted translations of the Bible into vernacular languages for so long; who can argue with the Church's interpretation of scripture when the common believer can't even read it?

Granted, it is true that a clergyman who is extremely knowledgeable in ancient Hebrew, Latin, Greek, etc. will have a better understanding of what the ancient scriptures really meant, but does that mean the Church alone is capable of correctly understanding the Word of God? The Church has utilized its authority to such an extent that people are too scared to think for themselves. As one German Catholic said, "I don't like paying [the tax], but I do because I fear the step of quitting the Church." He, and countless others, equates disagreeing with the church to eternal damnation. Are they really the same thing?

I didn't think the Catholic Church was still capable of surprising me. I thought this kind of blatant avarice and abuse of power was given up in the Middle Ages (as opposed to the subtle avarice and abuse seen today). Perhaps it's fitting, then, that this is occurring in the same country that gave birth to the Protestant Reformation.

It's no wonder Martin Luther consider the pope to be the Antichrist.

Suck It, Wholefoods: Philabundance Opening a Not-For-Profit Grocery Store

Philabundance, the area's largest food bank, announced plans to build Fare & Square the nation's first not-for-profit grocery store. The facility, located in the City of Chester, is being built in response to a problem that many low-income residents face: lack of access to healthy and affordable food. Fare & Square will accept food stamps and also offer other programs to the poor while still offering fresh produce, meats, and other common items at low prices to all other shoppers.

What's up now, Wholefoods?

It seems counterintuitive (to me, at least) that basic food would be more expensive than heavily-processed food; you'd think all of that processing would jack up the cost to the consumer. That's not the case, however. And that's one of the major reasons that obesity disproportionately affects the poor. Philabundance is hoping that Fare & Square is successful and will provide a model for similar programs across the country.

Watch for the hipsters to jump all over this.

All Day I Dream About...Slavery?

Designer Jeremy Scott has created a new high-end sneaker for Adidas, seen below.

Critics were quick to associate the ankle cuff with slavery, calling the design racist.  Of course, such claims have been denied by both parties.  But don't worry; I've figured it all out for you.

For the purposes of this article, I consider racism to mean a belief that one or many races are inferior to another.  Here, the shoes would be indicative of racist attitudes if the designer and/or Adidas are implying that black people ought to be enslaved or imprisoned, that black people are naturally suited to slavery or are more inclined to crime, or even if either party is jokingly suggesting such a belief.  I'll say now that I see no reason to think that the shoes are somehow supposed to satirize such notions.  More importantly, the designer hasn't made such a claim, either.

So, are the shoes somehow associated with slavery?  Despite the misleading title to this post (sorry), the shoes don't bring images of slavery to this white guy's mind.  But the shoe isn't out of the woods, yet.

Consider the name: JS Roundhouse Mids.  Perhaps you didn't know this, but "roundhouse" has been associated with jail for centuries.  Coupled with the prisoner jumpsuit-orange, it seems pretty clear that Scott was influenced by prison chic.

It's also worth noting the shoe's tagline: "Got sneaker game so hot you need to lock your kicks to your ankles?"  Given the particular type of vernacular English used, it's fair to assume that the sneakers would've been marketed to those influenced by hip hop culture.  So, young black men would have made up a significant portion of the target demographic, had the shoes actually gone to market.


So, we have the following equation.  Prison theme+black male demographic=x.  And what does x equal?  Racism?  Or was it merely naïveté?  Or, perhaps, Scott and Adidas merely observed the perceived glorification of criminal behavior in some rap music and tried to cash in on it?


Before I answer that question, though, I'd like to consider another one:  What if Scott was black?  Would the shoes, could the shoes, still be racist?  Or would it just be another example of the aforementioned glorification of criminal activity?  This raises the question of the ol' racism double standard; if it's OK for a black person to do it, why isn't it OK for a white person to?  To which I respond, "Because."  Sometimes, double standards are a good thing: guys can fart, but girls can't; college kids can drink every day without beign an alcoholic, real-world grown-ups can't; black people can say "nigga", white people can't, unless Kanye gives his mostly white concert ticket-buying audience permission or if you find yourself in the following situation:




Anyway, back to the shoes: are they racist?  Not intentionally so.  Racism is profitable, and it seems to me that the intention here was to cash in on the perceived tendency to glorify criminal behavior or serving jail time instead of snitching.  However, they are extremely ignorant.  So there you go.

You're welcome.

Oy Vey...

Compared to the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism generally does a good job of minding their own business (something Christianity and Islam will seemingly never learn to do).  When it comes to religious foolishness, though, Judaism is one of the worst.  Orthodox Jews exhibit what I consider the most personally and socially destructive religious "value": accepting suffering and injustice as the will of their god instead of trying to change things for the better.  But whatever idiotic religious practices might be particular to Judaism, there is one characteristic they share with the other major religions: hypocrisy.

Lauren Odes offers a prime example.  Odes was about to begin a new data entry job for a company in Manhattan.  She says she was told to observe other employees to get an idea of the dress code, which she described as casual.  Although she felt she complied with the unspecified dress code, the Orthodox Jewish owners of the company apparently felt otherwise, saying her attire was "distracting."  So the next day, Odes compromised and wore a more modest t-shirt to work the next day.  The company was still unsatisfied.  That's not surprising; a t-shirt is certainly less-than-professional.  The alternative offered by the company, however, was simply ridiculous.  Initially, her female supervisor actually asked Odes to tape her breasts down!  Refusing to do this, her supervisor gave her a bathrobe to wear over her clothes.  A bathrobe!

Odes complied nonetheless.  However, after teasing from her coworkers, the supervisor softened up and allowed Odes to go out and buy a sweater...as long as it went down to her ankles.  I didn't even know ankle-length sweaters existed.  While shopping for the sweater, the company called her and fired her.  Odes has since filed a lawsuit for sexual and religious discrimination, claiming the Jewish owners fired her for offending their religious sensibilities.

So, where's the hypocrisy?

The company is a lingerie wholesaler!  Firing this woman for having tig ol' bitties is like a gym firing an employee for being too fit!  The owners apparently have no qualms about making money from behavior they consider immoral, but you better cover up those forearms and shins if you expect to work for them.

I typically side with employers on issues like this; a company ought to be able to impose whatever legal requirements for employment they want, including a dress code.  But the "professional dress code" defense goes out the window when you ask your busty female employees to wear an old robe or ankle-length sweater.  Furthermore, the fact that she was asked to tape down her breasts shows that the owners took issue with her actual body, not the clothes she was wearing.  Remember last year when the oh-so-provocative Hilary Clinton was cut out of that picture published in a New York Orthodox Jewish newspaper because pictures of women are sexually suggestive?

I used to praise Judaism for the fact that it doesn't seek converts and shove its faith down your throat like so many other religions do.  But, as I look at all religions more critically, the Jewish opposition to conversion seems more and more to be rooted in elitism.  I was naive; there is no religion that does not tout itself to be their god's chosen people and therefore superior to everyone else (interestingly, some scholars translate Jesus's statement "Love thy neighbor" to mean your fellow Jews and that he never intended Gentiles to follow his teachings).  And the Abrahamic religions seem especially concerned with keeping women in their place.  It's a shame so many people are duped into buying this garbage.