Sotomayor, white men, and identity politics

In the past few weeks, we’ve all been inundated with news about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court and now well-known 2001 speech at Berkeley Law. 

All of the major media outlets and political talk shows, including this morning’s Meet the Press and State of the Union, have taken this on as one of their primary topics.  In fact, they’ve replaced coverage of their favorite national security issue with policymakers, pundits, and regular folks debating back and forth about whether or not Sotomayor is a “good pick” for Supreme Court Justice. 

It is, however, understandable why Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court has captured the nation’s political imagination!  President Obama has just nominated the first Latina woman to serve on the highest court of the land!  Sotomayor’s nomination represents the hopes and dreams of so many who have fought for or otherwise believe in gender equality and racial justice—of those who believe in the representation and full, meaningful engagement of women and people of color in all aspects of this country’s leadership. 

But I also don’t have to tell you that Sotomayor’s nomination represents some folks’ worst nightmare!  I can just hear it now: “Wasn’t electing a Black President enough?”  “What happened to the ‘post-racial’ Obama (if you’ve been reading between the lines of his speeches, you know that he never existed to begin with!)?” “What is this? A Black and Brown takeover?”

Fear of gender and racial justice has stirred many conservatives to their core…leading de facto party leaders such as Rush Limbaugh to call Sotomayor a racist.  Or rather, excuse me, a “reverse racist”—whatever that means given that the very definition of racism involves a dominant or hegemonic racial group exercising social, economic, and political power over another based on some socially and historically constructed definition of “race,” which the dominant group holds near and dear to its heart because of the privileges that it confers upon its members. 

An important focal point of these conversations has been whether or not Sotomayor’s statement that her identity as a Latina woman shapes her judicial judgment makes her unfit to serve on the Court. We’ve heard all sorts of accusations that Sotomayor is playing “identity politics”—which is of course, completely unacceptable given that the playing field is entirely level  for everyone in this country and that struggles for gender and racial justice are oh so passé!  

Wherever you stand on the issue, whatever “identity politics” means to you, and regardless of whether or not you like or agree with the use of the term, I’m sure you can appreciate how ironic it is that accusations of “playing identity politics” only come up when we’re talking about women or people of color or both, but never when we’re talking about white men. 

Is being a man not a gender identity? 

Is being white not a racial identity?

The way that the debate has been unfolding, you would think not! 

In fact, the only people whom I’ve heard throw around this accusation of “identity politicking” are white men.  The white women, women of color, and men of color who have appeared on political talk shows have all acknowledged and reaffirmed the inevitable truth that one’s life experiences, which in turn affect one’s professional judgment and interpretation of seemingly objective aspects of social life such as the law, are shaped by one’s gender and race/ethnicity.  Is this really surprising given that where you stand in the social hierarchy—which is based on not only your gender and race/ethnicity, but also socioeconomic position, sexual orientation, and immigrant status (among others)—affects the types of social, economic, and political opportunities that you are not only exposed to but afforded? 

The conversations surrounding the Sotomayor nomination have made it crystal clear that white men constitute the “baseline,” “standard,” or “normative” identity in this country—a kind of apolitical hegemonic identity-less identity, if you will—that is thus above any kind of “identity politics.”  Anyone who somehow deviates from this norm—and dares to bring it up in the context of social or political life—is a whiner or agitator.  Never mind that being a white man is attached to social, economic, and political power and that this power has been secured through violence (physical, economic, sexual, cultural, structural, and symbolic) against other social groups.  And never mind that being the hegemonic social identity is a source of power in and of itself.  It’s the norm and therefore beyond any scrutiny.  

In his book entitled “The Gendered Society,” Michael S. Kimmel (2000, p. 7) states: “Sometimes, I like to think that it was on this day that I became a middle-class white man. Sure, I had been all those before, but they had not meant much to me.  Until then, I had thought myself generic, universally generalizable.  Since then, I ‘ve begun to understand that race, class, and gender don’t refer only to other people, who are marginalized by race, class, or gender privivlege.  Those terms also describe me.  I enjoyed the privilege of invisibility.”  He goes on to note: “Invisibility is a privilege in another sense—as a luxury. Only white people in our society have the luxury not to think about race every minute of their lives.  And only men have the luxury to pretend that gender does not matter.” 

The reality is that no decision is ever devoid of “identity politics.”  You could easily see how having all white men on the Supreme Court could also constitute “identity politics.”  Having all white men on the Board of a major financial institution?  Easily “identity politics” as well!  Even if they are not blatantly made on race or gender (although many still are), these are political decisions made on factors such as level of experience, level of education, socioeconomic status (including occupation and social prestige)—all of which are shaped by one’s social position.  And, you guessed it, one’s social position is influenced by one’s identity—or rather, I should say, the value that our society has assigned to that particular identity.

“Identity politics” just seem more covert, less obvious, and even non-existent when white men are appointed to positions of power.  Afterall, these are the images that have dominated our social, economic, and political landscape throughout history.  It’s just business as usal.

So because people like Sonia Sotomayor, who deviate from the “normative white male identity,” are challenging the baseline assumptions of who can be in a leadership position—while noting their gender and race/ethnicity in the process—they’re playing identity politics? 

What they’re really doing is pointing out who’s been dominating the game all along.

 m.

Genarlow Wilson is free!

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that Genarlow Wilson’s sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. This comes after he served two years of a ten year sentence for, at the age of 17, engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Here we have it: Yet another case that exemplifies how unjust our criminal justice system truly is, especially for people of color. With 2.2 million folks in prison, most of them black and brown, and with 5 million on parole or probation, isn’t it time we take a long walk around the block to think about what our draconian law and policy is actually doing to our communities?

The 7 facts you may or may not know about Genarlow’s case:

1. Had Genarlow actually had sex with the girl, the act would have been charged as a misdemeanor.

2. Under Georgia law, until 1998, oral sex between a husband and a wife was illegal.

3. Five of the other high school-age boys who had consensual oral sex with the girl on that same night were offered — and accepted — plea bargains. Genarlow, the one without a criminal record or knowledge of court workings, decided to trust the American (in)justice system.

4. The jury acquitted Genarlow of one charge of rape but were forced to render a guilty verdict for the second charge, aggravated child molestation, because the girl was under the 16-years-of-age consent limit.

5. The conviction automatically registered Genarlow as a sex offender.

6. Because of mandatory minimum sentencing (the kind in which a drug dealer slinging 1 gram of crack cocaine is sentenced to the same time as someone selling 100 grams of powder) Genarlow automatically received 10 years without the possibility of probation or parole.

7. Many people have derided Thurbert Baker, the black Georgia DA who seems not to think that Genarlow’s sentence was cruel and unusual. Jimmy Carter wrote a blah blah state-the-obvious letter to Baker that put a crazy notion out there: “The racial dimension of the case is likewise hard to ignore and perhaps unfortunately has had an impact on the final outcome of the case.” (Wow, who would have thought? Race and criminal justice, there’s a heinous intersection there?!) He also noted another shocker: white defendants have — historically received and currently receive — milder sentences for similar acts. Thankfully, more nuanced and with-it Baker critics included Rev. Joseph Lowery and the Congressional Black Caucus.

While I planned to concentrate on the criminal justice side of this case (i.e. the utter disregard for reason in mandatory sentencing and the more specific racial underpinnings in Southern criminal law), I kept reading articles where (mainly white) op-ed writers and others in the mainstream media were using the same phraseology: “honor student” and “son of a single mother” and “football star.” Even ESPN picked up on Genarlow’s case and, er, “ran” with it because he had such a great football record.

Hmm. Now, don’t get me wrong: Any time the American people are turned on to the injustice in the criminal justice system, I’m glad. I’m just worried that many may gloss right over the important parts of this case because of a few loaded phrases.

“honor student” “son of a single mother” “football star”

We know why they use these buzz phrases, don’t we? Because the more acceptable YBMs (young black males) — the ones who “overcame” their “circumstances” to make good grades — are the ones who are championed. I’ll say it again: Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hating on Genarlow for his acheivements and I’m not disregarding how this case can be used to make changes to crazed sentencing policy. I’m just hesitant to buy into what some in the media and public sphere emphasize about this case’s tone and meaning. Yeah, he seemed like a good guy. But there are plenty of good guys out there who, because of social, economic, familial and other circumstances, don’t have the access or opportunity to acheive, especially not to acheive the way that middle America folks think is “good” or “worthy” or “acceptable”…for a black man…

There are notions of a chosen-because-of-his-acceptability, Rosa Parks-like dimension to the coverage and amplification — and the corresponding outrage — of Genarlow’s case, especially in the white media. Let’s be real: Rosa should be celebrated because of her sit down and the way she pushed (or, um, was pushed) out into the public consciousness, but Claudette Colvin (one of four young black girls who refused to give up their seats to white people way before Rosa Parks and even went to court for it) was deemed unworthy of championing by the white liberals and the civil rights establishment because she was low-income and had a child out of wedlock. I just wonder what would have happened if Genarlow had had a criminal record, was a D student, or wasn’t in school. Maybe everyone would be similarly outraged. Perhaps the mainstream media would have pushed the case of a D student to their front pages, like they did with Genarlow.

But, then again, there are Genarlows all around the country, every day, convicted because of structural and policy obsurdities like the crack/powder disparity or Jena-like assault charges. Yet very few of them have the grades, the sport, and the overcoming narrative to get press coverage. Not all of them are acceptable.

The 2007 VMA’s: “A Beautiful Disaster?”

I think not.  There was nothing beautiful about the VMA’s this year.  In fact, they were quite possibly the worst I’ve ever seen.  Poor Timbaland (he produced this one…).  He certainly won’t be adding this one to his long list of accomplishments.

The show started with a lackluster performance by the dethroned Pop Princess herself — Britney Spears.   By the looks of it, alcohol and drug abuse can do more than just make young starlets do outrageous things; it also makes them forget how to dance and sing!  Britney’s long years of dance training and video-move making both seem to have gone out the window.  Not only was her choreography washed out and uncreative (think one body roll after the next…), but she performed them with the energy, confidence, and enthusiasm of someone who just knows they fell off.  Britney couldn’t even get it together enough to match her lip syncing to the wording of the song.  Not even her black leather-wearing backup dancers could save the performance.  They too seemed lost and confused on stage.  This was a long cry from Britney’s raved about “Slave For You” VMA performance several years back.

But it wasn’t just Britney.  They whole show was a disaster.  First of all, where were all of the celebs? Even Fergie was MIA.  Apart from Diddy, Beyonce, and Eve, the biggest star there was Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. 

Enough said. 

The entire concept for this year’s VMA’s left a lot to be desired.  Even though the stars throwing their own individual suite parties seemed to be having a heck of a lot more fun than the celebs with front row seating at the awards show, the whole ”suite party” concept was pretty confusing.  With the dim lighting and frenzied camera shots, we were lucky if we caught a glimpse of the performers running up the stairs or navigating the overly zealous crowd.

My least favorite performance of the night, however, was during the pre-show when Nicole Scherzinger attempted to up her “street cred” by teaming up with the one and only Lil’ Wayne.  She also tried to increase her hip hop appeal by throwing in a little booty shaking, mean mugging, and asking the crowd to “throw [their] hands up.” Sorry, Nicole.  You’ll have to do more than that to prove that you’ve got what it takes to run in hip hop circles.  Maybe if she knew anything about the social and political roots of hip hop in 1970’s New York City’s black and Latino neighborhoods, and its close ties to political activism and liberation movements (see Public Enemy for old school versions of this and Dead Prez for current interpretations), she would realize that there’s a lot more to the game than sex appeal, bling, and expensive clothes.

Even Jennifer Garner, presumably one of “America’s sweethearts,” couldn’t get her act together during the show.  Come on Jenn—”Gym Class Fallout?!?!”  To her defense,  she was probably distracted by Jamie Fox who couldn’t seem to stand still or stop interrupting her.  I’m sure Jenn’s PR rep was probably thinking: “I knew we shouldn’t have agreed to her co-hosting with Jamie.  Those black people, they just don’t know how to act.”  By the looks of it, Jenn was thinking the same thing.

Last but not least, the VMA’s featured a commercial for the soon-to-air new MTV show, A Shot with Tila Tequila.  In this latest version of reality dating shows, My Space vixen, model, and singer Tila Tequila announces that she’s bisexual and that “16 gorgeous lesbians” and “16 gorgeous straight guys” will be engaging in the “ultimate battle of the sexes” for her affection.  Why bisexual men and women were ineligible to participate as contestants, I’m not sure.  But most importantly, while I understand that this show is a big step for bisexual representation in popular media culture, it unfortunately perpetuates the same old stereotypes about bisexuals — mainly that men and women who identify as bisexual are 1) attracted to both men and women at any given point in time; 2)  equally attracted to both men and women at any given point in time; and 3) pinning men and women head to head when deciding who they want to engage in an intimate relationship with.  

Contrarily to what the commercials for this show might suggest, bisexuality is much more fluid than that. In fact, men and women who identify as bisexual are rarely always and unequivocally attracted to both men and women 50/50 at any given point in time.  Also, from my own experiences and those of friends and acquaintances, bisexuals’  rationale for selecting a partner rarely involves a full-on “battle of the sexes” between men and women.  Instead, bisexuals are much more likely to be attracted to a person as a result of his/her individual character, personality, and physical traits, with the person’s gender featuring more or less prominently in that decision.  The person’s gender can often be an afterthought when evaluating their ”pontential” as a partner.

With that said, I will definetly be watching Tila’s show and sounding off here on the range of issues that it will likely raise about sexuality and gender.

What I probably won’t be watching, however, are next year’s VMA’s… 

m.