You Can't Be In What You Don't Enter
There was a hue and cry from black readers of the Raleigh News & Observer over a fall fashion shoot that only included white teens. Gasp! How could they do such a thing?! Well, because only white teens showed up wanting to be included. In a piece mea culp-ily headlined "Minority omission damages a good feature," Ted Vaden writes for the paper:
...There was an uh-oh moment when seven teens turned up for the photo shoot: All were white girls. At that point, it was too late in the production schedule to find more models or change the story, editors said, so The N&O's Features Department went ahead Monday with the Life, etc. fashion front called "Students of Style," complete with full-length photos of the stylish but un-diverse students.The reaction from readers was swift:
* "I was stunned that in 2007 this newspaper would feature seven girls who look exactly the same. Where are the girls of color? There were no Latinas, no African-Americans, and no Asians represented. No girls who don't fit the 'typically pretty' image!" --Neva Bartholomew, Chapel Hill.
* "It's difficult to believe that every respondent to the call for area fashionistas was Caucasian with shoulder-length straight hair and predictably trendy fashion sense. If so, perhaps the editors of Life, etc. should take the hint and write articles that appeal to a more diverse readership." -- Claire McGarry, Raleigh.
And on and on. The reporter and editors involved acknowledge that the feature turned out unfortunately and that they would handle it differently if they had a do-over. "I think perhaps if we had started the process earlier, we could have been prepared to deal with it," said Pop Culture Editor Adrienne Johnson Martin.
There were several factors working against this project, she said. First, school is out for most students, so the paper had difficulty finding teens to model their fashion choices. The solution was to post a "fetch" in the Life, etc. section inviting high school students to participate. The problem with that was that the pool of participants then became self-selecting, and no minorities selected themselves.
Martin said it was too bad that race ended up being readers' focus, because the project otherwise had pretty good diversity, with girls from five schools in three counties wearing styles ranging from discount store to boutique.
...Linda Williams, an N&O assistant managing editor, says there are some subtle reasons behind minorities' unwillingness to participate in a newspaper feature like the back-to-school story. The self-selection for that story, she said, presumably was done not by the students but by their mothers, who are the readers of the paper. In the black community, she said, mothers would be less likely to encourage their daughters to participate. "There's a concern about the exposure of bodies of young black women, because of things going on in popular culture," said Williams, who is African-American. "For them to do it, there has to be a lot of trust."
Oh, please. You don't enter, you don't appear. And you don't get to complain that the paper didn't show people who look like you. Do we really need to have affirmative action for voluntary photo shoots...send some of those white girls who want to be in the photo home, and force black girls in off the street who don't want to participate?
By the way, I didn't need my mother telling me what was in the paper because I read the paper every day when I was growing up -- in fact, I read the two papers my parents subscribed to, Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News; first, because I loved reading, and because I wanted to know what was going on in the world. Had I seen an ad for a fashion contest at either paper, I would've walked, crawled or flown downtown to be in the shot.
Of course, redheads are often unrepresented in magazines and newspapers. Do you think I have a case? (At very least, for a lot of complaining?)
I'm reminded of a talk I had with a professor who was in charge of one of the early evolutionary psychology conferences, in the 90s. In the spirt of having female researchers "well-represented," not just in presenting papers in small groups, but in giving the big talks to the entire group, he invited woman after woman to do one of the big talks. All turned him down. Even when he begged. So sometimes, when it's all men doing the talking in some professional situation, maybe somebody's keeping the chicks out...or maybe, just maybe, many of the chicks don't want in in quite the same way the men do.
Do note that I say this as a grandstanding, floor-hogging, mike-grabbing, radio-or-tv-show-of-my-own coveting, loudmouthed broad. If they're taking volunteers, or even if they're not, I'm volunteering. But, it's my sense that that women just aren't as aggressive as men in a lot of venues. Why should they be? First, women almost always have far less testosterone, the aggression chemical. And men, I believe, are fighters and business-world fighters largely to get chicks. While men, these days, increasingly go for smart women, "pretty" still matters more than "successful" to a whole lot of men, and women know that. And a lot of men find women who are successful threatening, and an exit risk (as in, they're more likely to leave).
Also, I think there are a lot of women out there who think to themselves, "Gee, if it gets rough in the work world, I'll just marry some guy and become a Brentwood (fill in your Easy Acres 'burb here) mom." Not because they're somehow morally less than men but because they can and they know it. Guys simply don't have that option -- both because they can't get pregnant, and because they know that chicks don't generally go for the guys who are semi-employed at the gas station. So, doing what it takes to be a Big Man On Campus in the work world is understandably much more essential to a lot of men than to a lot of women.
"Of course, redheads are often unrepresented in magazines and newspapers. Do you think I have a case? (At very least, for a lot of complaining?)"
Yes! Yes! More redheads!
Steve Daniels at August 10, 2007 8:34 AM
"I was stunned that in 2007 this newspaper would feature seven girls who look exactly the same. Where are the girls of color?
So, do we all look alike to the author of this gem or just "our" women?
Machida at August 10, 2007 8:38 AM
I was thinking the same, Machida. A white person would never get away with saying something like that. Yes, I know, we historically have more benefits, we've oppressed the masses, etc., etc., and so on. But like Amy says, you're either for equality or you're not. If you are, you can't say crap like that.
Christina at August 10, 2007 8:50 AM
>you're either for equality or you're not
It's all very individual. The successful black people I know are for equality. The unsuccessful ones aren't - they seem to think life owes them a living. Unfortunately, it seems that the latter outnumber the former, which leads people to generalize.
I specifically say "black", because other minorities seem to have a lot less of this problem.
bradley13 at August 10, 2007 9:53 AM
That's very funny, Machida. The truth is, I think it's very hard for people to discern between people of other races if they haven't grown up around them. Black people and Asians are particularly difficult, because unlike white people, they don't have as much variation in hair and skin color. It's kind of hard to mistake me, a redhead, for my sister with dark brown unless we're both wearing ski hats.
Amy Alkon at August 10, 2007 1:49 PM
I'm not so sure Amy. I grew up in a mixed white/black neighborhood, but never saw asians and only one jew until I left my neighborhood to make my way in the world. I don't have trouble differentiating individual asians but jews still all look the same to me.
My apology for having too little character to avoid the gotcha :)
Machida at August 10, 2007 2:25 PM
The Advice Goddess sez:
"And men, I believe, are fighters and business-world fighters largely to get chicks"
and
"Guys simply don't have that option ... because they know that chicks don't generally go for the guys who are semi-employed at the gas station".
Abso-friggin'-lutely!
Men do pretty much everything we do in order to "get chicks". We know women are attracted to successful guys, and so we must compete with other men in order to attract them. I know exactly what my wife expects of me. If I don't deliver, I know what I'll get in return: bupkes.
If men could get laid sitting around on the couch with a beer watching the game, believe me, we would never leave the house.
Ephraim at August 10, 2007 6:40 PM
I think girls like me who don't want marriage or kids are probably more likely to be competitive on the level of men. My work is who I am.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2007 1:34 PM
I'm also a woman not interested in marriage or children, and while I don't mind giving a presentation, and have even been known to enjoy doing so, I've never really sought the spotlight. And if my career were my life, I'd have killed myself (and taken out a few others) years ago! The brashest, most outspoken colleague I know is a married woman with multiple kids.
Monica at August 15, 2007 10:33 AM
I lived for 17 years in the circulation area for the N&O. It doesn't surprise me a bit. That area is electric with racial tension and people just LOOK for something racial to complain about. I had no extreme experiences with racism when I lived up North as opposed to living in the South. So reading these readers reactions is just terribly typical for that part of the country.
Cathleen at August 16, 2007 7:28 AM
Wait, I cannot fathom it being so starihgtofrward.
Hank at October 22, 2011 4:52 PM
Leave a comment