First, state your credentials. It’s okay to be a woman, but not a black woman. Their lived experiences are immaterial and can be dismissed as merely anecdotal. Make it clear that you are not racist or sexist, you are merely concerned about their plight. What plight? Well, pick one. Or several. Marriage, children, lack of the above, too much education, not enough education, welfare, whatever you think will sell. It only matters that you highlight their troublesome natures. Whatever it is, you must be sure to make it clear that they aren’t like other women. They are failing to perform in some way that affects the whole of society, even if you can’t quite explain how or why their personal lives are public property. Further, rely heavily on the idea of research that shows the problem is a problem. Never mention exactly when that research was done, or who were the subjects of it. Too much context may unnecessarily complicate the conversation.

Utilize stereotypes whenever possible, preferably ones that tie into the Mammy, Jezebel, or Sapphire tropes. Describe black women in ways that play up their sexuality and remove their humanity. After all they are Other, so their skin is a food stuff, the space between their thighs is mysterious, and they have never ever been innocent. No need to mention virginity or purity, even when speaking of black female infants, your focus must be on their sexuality. If you are speaking of black mothers make it clear that they need guidance, financial support, or salvation. What salvation? Well that all depends on whether they work too little and thus are on welfare, or work too much and thus are neglecting their children. There is no point at which they can balance work and family, because again they are Other and that is not possible for them. They are emasculating and thus unworthy of relationships, or the key to being masculine with their all knowing sexuality that is present from birth. Unrapeable, they can be trusted to raise any children but their own, and are sexually available until they become sexless.

They exist to be support systems, whether for men of all colors or women of every color but black. No need to mention their needs, hopes, dreams, or concerns. They have none, even if they do occasionally speak of themselves as real people with feelings. Their voices are too loud, too uneducated, or simply too aggressive. They are always angry about something, but their feelings aren’t real so they don’t matter. Be sure to specify how reasonable you are in the face of their unreasonable behavior. Write of how you studied them at a safe distance, while proclaiming that some of your closest friends are black women. No need to know anything about those close friends, but their names since all that matters is that you have them as proof that you know your subject, and are not racist or sexist.

Contrast them with women of other races, always making sure to highlight that other women are real women, while black women are simply black. Feel free to make blanket statements about their religious beliefs, educational levels, income levels, and family dynamics. All of it is true because you say it is, and you are the expert in black women, not any actual black women. If they are offended by your words, remind them of your credentials and refuse to engage in a conversation with them until they can be less emotional. Point to their tone as a reason to doubt the veracity of their experiences. After all they are only black women and thus they know nothing, own nothing, and are worth nothing but what you say they are.

How To Write About Black Women -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

I’m about to get in my feelings as a black mother about this bullshit unsolicited advice to Blue Ivy Carter. I freely admit that I do not give even a tiny bit of a fuck about whatever literary conceits are about to be defended as part of justifying it. Because this letter was not written in a vacuum. This letter was not written out f any genuine concern for her health or safety. This letter was little more than a stunt that used a child of color & her parents to bolster a career. Yes I am sure she will say she meant no harm or disrespect. That she was trying to say good things to Blue Ivy, because she wants to help. Some will likely even say that her message was positive & for the best. Guess what?

We do not exist in a world where mothers of color can walk around without someone passing judgement on their right to be mothers simply because of the color of their skin. We do not live in a world where a woman of color becoming a mother is supported or respected. We do not exist in a world where white women who think they know best have not harmed families of color. We live in a world where white women often decide to “rescue” children of color by taking them from their homes, their cultures, and their mothers. So when a white woman decides she is “helping” by addressing a child of color she does not know as though her words will have any value to that child? I am already wary.

The fact that she is speaking to a newborn about topics that are emphatically none of her damned business & are in fact the province of that child’s parents just makes it even more offensive. It is a curious sort of racist White Woman’s Burden logic that allows you to engage with mothers of color in ways that would be patently offensive to you if the tables were turned. I have seen white mothers of children of color get deeply offended when conditioner and oil are suggested as remedies for the “unmanageable” hair of their child. Often that suggestion comes while they stare at the hair of our children and want to know how we get it to behave.

Meanwhile you often feel entitled to speak to us of everything from religion to sex as though we do not have our own morals to impart to our children. I have had my own share of “helpful” white women who do not know me, but who feel quite comfortable questioning my parenting decisions on every front. Over the last 12 years I have had unsolicited input from those women on everything from what I feed my son with food allergies, to how much responsibility I give to my son with special needs. These are not white women who are my friends, not women who my children know well, these are not even white women who have set foot in my house.

Instead they are little more than strangers (or in some cases employees at a child care facility) with little direct contact with my children. But they feel their input is worthwhile because I am black and a mother, and clearly I can’t know what I’m doing. Here is a thought for those white women who feel the need to approach mothers of color, or their children with unsolicited advice. Don’t. Really, just strangle whatever urge it is that drives you to behave so offensively, and practice the fine art of minding your own damned business. You are not our elders, our partners, or in fact in part of our lives. You do not know what is best for our children, or how we should raise them to survive in a racist society that allows your children safety & security that our children will never know. Spend more time teaching your kids (and yourself) how to engage with people of color as people, and less time finding ways to stroke your egos by attacking ours.

Dear White Women Who Think You Mean Well, -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

I meant to post this yesterday, but work things got in the way. Then the ever-wonderful Cleolinda posted the long, long post I was going to write and said everything I was going to say. So I’ll keep mine short. I suggest you click over to Cleolinda’s blog for the full story. Seriously.

A few days ago Rachel Manija Brown and Sherwood Smith wrote a guest post for the Genreville blog over at Publisher’s Weekly about their experience with an unnamed agent who asked them to make changes to their YA manuscript to erase the fact that a main POV character was gay. At least for the first book in the series. The pair went on to say that they’d heard that this thing with erasing gay characters in YA was something other authors experienced and thus they felt the need to write about it and bring the overall issue to light.

They did not name the agent or agency. They moved on from their specific example to the broader issue. They pointed out that this seemed to come from a concern over market forces rather than labeling anyone Homophobic or Gay Hating. If you don’t believe me, go read the original.

The post sparked a big conversation about the issue and I saw in the comments and on blogs and social networks that several other authors, published and not, talk their stories of having agents and/or editors tell them to remove gay characters from their YA.

Then Joanna Stampfel-Volpe, an agent with Nancy Coffey Literary & Media Representation, posted on Colleen Lindsay’s blog, The Swivet, outing her agency as the one in question (though claims she is not the specific agent in question) and essentially called Rachel and Sherwood liars. Under the guest post part, Colleen added this:

FACT: Both these writers already have their own agents. At least one of those agents reps YA books. So what does it say when the respective agents for both these well-established writers advise them to find a different agent for the book in question because neither of them wanted to rep it themselves?

It tells me that homophobia was most likely not the reason that this book has thus far not found representation.

And that made me see red because that just looks like a personal attack and an attempt to dismiss what Rachel and Sherwood said by saying that their book is no good. Further, on my Facebook page, Colleen claimed that she knew other agents who turned the book down because it had structural issues.

I like and respect Colleen a lot, but I’m calling bullshit on this. Though she says she didn’t mean for the above words to be an attack, that’s what it looks like. And, even if other agents passed on the book for structural reasons, that does not mean that the conversation as represented by Rachel and Sherwood didn’t happen. One does not preclude the other.

Putting that aside, at this point we’ve reached He Said/She Said, and it comes down to which side you believe. Stampfel-Volpe said that at no time did they say they wanted to eliminate the character because of the gayness. Rachel and Sherwood maintain that this is indeed what was said.

For my part, I believe Rachel and Sherwood. My main criteria being that my interactions with Rachel online and the interactions and friendships she has with people I know and trust do not lead me to believe she would lie in this way. I don’t know Sherwood well, but nothing I have ever heard from her good friends leads me to believe she would perpetuate a hoax for publicity or lie for profit.

Rose Fox of Genreville apparently felt the same way. Colleen mentions something about how the piece wasn’t fact checked, but how was that supposed to happen? The agency wasn’t named. And even though there are claims that the gossip identified the agency, the majority of us wouldn’t know without their self-outing. These are not the kind of “facts” that can be easily checked because the other party can say “That didn’t happen” and they could be lying just as easily as the authors. Rose used her judgment based on what she knows about the two women and, so far, I haven’t seen any reason for her to have doubted that.

Additionally, Stampfel-Volpe’s post is filled with the kind of red flags I see every day as an anti-prejudice activist. The tone is too defensive¹ and unconvincing. Plus, what exactly do you expect the agency to say? “Yes, we did that”? No. Hell no.

Think about it. If they did request the changes Rachel and Sherwood claim and did so because of market forces and such, they wouldn’t admit to it especially if they aren’t homophobic themselves. It’s just like the whole cover controversy with Justine Larbalestier’s Liar. I’m sure that her publishers are not racist people, but they put a non-black person on the cover of her book at first because they assumed that systemic racist attitudes would hurt sales. That is not something you want to admit in public, because it’s gross. It happens, though. We all know it happens. And thanks to #YesGayYA we know that the erasure of gay characters in YA happens, too. And it’s still gross.

No one wants to admit when they give in to prejudiced bullshit.

The other reason I just don’t believe Stampfel-Volpe is that she made this whole thing personal:

One of our agents is being used as a springboard for these authors to gain attention for their project. She is being exploited. But even worse, by basing their entire article on untruths, these authors have exploited the topic.

Someone explain to me how the agent in question is being exploited when he/she wasn’t named. Also, bringing a topic to light is not exploitative. The kind of people I see using language like that are the folks who try to tell me that by bringing up racism or “inventing” it when it’s not there, I am the one being racist. This is a classic defense. It may even be on the BINGO card. When I see people using this kind of language, I immediately distrust what they have to say. I’ve been on the receiving end of this too often to not recognize it.

I suggest you read the original Genreville post and the other excellent links at Cleolinda’s blog before you come down on one side or the other, especially if you don’t know any of the people involved. The readiness of some people to immediate jump to HOAX! based on absolutely nothing but one person’s word would astonish me if I didn’t already have plenty of experience watching people readily dismiss real prejudice that exists right in front of them as not-prejudice. It’s so much more comforting to think that someone is just a lying liar than that there’s a serious problem to tackle.

Tackling problems requires thought, effort, and often sacrifice. Who wants to deal with that?

My Thoughts On The Latest #YesGayYA Developments -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

1. Especially the parts added by Colleen, who emphatically claims that the agent is a good friend and not homophobic, even though Rachel and Sherwood didn’t say he/she was. A person might not be personally homophobic, but still perpetuate the idea that mainstream readers are too homophobic to deal with gay charcaters. It’s a systemic problem, and one need not be personally prejudiced in order to bow to the system.

One of the great things about the internet is how it lets people do things like exchange information. In many ways it has replaced things like the Green Book or word of mouth for transmitting info about places where stopping for more than gas (or stopping at all) wouldn’t be safe, where hotels will be welcoming, & where to avoid after certain times/at certain points of the year. Folks pass around info about where to find food/clothes/cocoa butter as well as what job markets are likely to be more welcoming and/or to require you to be a token in fact if not in name. This is important information. And yes, this information may make you feel something…unpleasant when you have to confront our view of the towns where you like to spend summers or where you grew up or whatever. Guess what? I feel something unpleasant when I can’t stop to pee for 50 miles because even though Jim Crow is over, no one in my car wants to risk a fight/jail/death because I forgot to tinkle in the last place we saw brown people walking around. Sundown towns had to put away their signs, but that doesn’t mean they had to put away their attitudes.

So, as you’re seeing these conversations roll across your screen, you may feel a need to jump in the middle & explain how that one family in that one town isn’t like that so we shouldn’t lump them in with the 35 other families in that town that are like that. Unless that one family in that one town is going to provide me with an armed escort? I don’t care about them. I care about the motherfuckers that might think it’s a fun game to run me over. And if you think that could only happen in the South? You haven’t been paying attention to where all those police brutality cases come up. Or what happens when POC go missing. Here’s a hint: Except for our friends & family no one really seems to bother raising a hue & cry over our disappearance.

Now, I know there are about to be some more feelings splattered all over the place because I wrote this post. Feel free to have them. You can even share them with me if you must, but do please give us all a break from your need to get in the middle of other conversations to insist that because your white self is safe in these predominately white spaces all other bodies are safe too. I’m sure you’ve never seen any racism in that all white neighborhood/town/region. That doesn’t mean it’s not there, that just means no convenient target has presented itself when you’re around.  Now, if you want to do something to change the impressions of these places? Don’t waste energy arguing with us to go against all common sense. Go talk to your neighbors/cousins/friends about exactly why POC avoid the places where they live. You know why I advise you to do that? Because it would actually be a step toward resolving the problem, instead of continuing to ignore it in favor of hoping that we’ll make it go away. Pro tip: The people who are the targets of bigots aren’t the ones with the problem.

Dear White Privileged People: This Post Is Not About Your Needs -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

1. If your biggest complaint about American black women & their activism is that they are so focused on their fight that they aren’t willing to fight your battles? It might be time to examine your internalized Mammy issues.

2. If you think we owe you admission to our spaces & silence while you’re in them? It might be time to examine your internalized Mammy issues.

3. If you think we owe you our time, energy, & passion and you owe us nothing? It is time to examine your Mammy issues.

I’m not here to clean up your mess, carry your spear, hold your hand, or cheer you own while I suffer in silence. I’m not here to raise your children, assuage your guilt, build your platforms, or fight your battles. If you don’t like the spaces that we’ve carved out for ourselves, or the way we run them? That’s fine. BUILD YOUR OWN SPACES! DO YOUR OWN WORK! You want a partner? I’m down. You want a Mammy? Get away from me before I really hurt your feelings.

Newsflash: That Mammy thing? That claptrap about the happy servant overjoyed to leave her family to serve someone else’s? That was just that a convenient myth for racists. Those same racists are still exporting the ideal that we are too loud, too angry, too ugly, & too beastly to be treated as human. We heard it when we were slaves & we heard it through Jim Crow, & we are still hearing it now as we sit at the intersection of racism & misogyny in our own culture.That’s why we’re fighting back on our own terms.

We are fighting a war on so many sides that it isn’t even funny & we already know that many of our so called allies will stab us in the back if it benefits their cause. We have had this fight with black men, white women, the LGBT community, & so many others that I could write three lists. So, if all you have to say to us is more whining about how we’re not making activism easier for you? We don’t care. We’re not going to care. Pick up the tools we’ve already created & use them or go wallow in your misery somewhere else.

Now, please go tell it on the mountain about how I’ve silenced you & let me know if that accomplishes anything for your cause.  I’ll tell you a secret…it won’t do anything, but keep you wasting your energy on supporting the same oppressors you claim to be fighting. Address those Mammy issues, address your own issues, do something about some issue somewhere except look at us to fix it for you.

Of Activists, Feminism, & Mammy issues -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

I got two words for you: Will Shetterly.

Yes, yes, yes, I know, using his full name will bring him down on this blog faster than saying Beetlejuice three times. If he shows up, ignore him. The larger point I’m trying to make is this:

Will Shetterly behaves abominably on the Internet and has been doing so for some time. He harasses people; he shows up where he’s not wanted and, in some cases, has been explicitly banned; he engages in stalker-like behavior; he’s just a big ass. However, he does this all under his real, parental-given, legal name. He is not ashamed of his actions. In fact, he is quite proud of himself.

If I were to list all the shenanigans Will has got up to over the few years I’ve known of him, some might assume that he was a troll hiding behind a name like ClassWarrior22 or whatever. But no.

While it is true that the Internet does cause many people to act in ways that they might not in meatspace, the whole pseudonym/handle/nickname thing is not the cause of these actions and does not indicate a higher instance of them. Mostly because any name can be a pseudonym or even just fake and not meant to indicate a unified identity. I could go by the name Joanna Smith on any number of blogs, say all kinds of shit, harass all kinds of people, and totally “get away with it” because that’s not my name.

Going by names alone, legal or otherwise, is not a sound method for cracking down on “fake” identities on the web. It’s just not. And if you work for a ginormous Internet corporation of doom such as Google and you don’t understand that, how the hell am I supposed to trust you with any of my online identities?

Google needs to get their damn act together on this. Like, right now.

Why The Argument That People Using “Real Names” Are Better Behaved Online Rings False -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

This has been linked everywhere but I’m going to post it again because everything he says is true and this needs a signal boost to the sky.

Perhaps when our alien overlords do finally come, they will spare some of us because of this man.

Baratunde Thurston Lays It All Out For America -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

I was listening to this story on NPR’s Morning Edition a few days ago about the debate over whether the military should lift its ban on women in combat roles. Currently, women are (obviously) allowed to serve in the military, and might end up in combat, but they aren’t assigned specifically to combat positions. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, this line is apparently blurred all the time. So there are women in combat right now, but they aren’t getting the career benefits from it.

There are several issues and factors to consider, and people against the whole notion have trotted out the usual excuses. What if women — oh horrors! — got pregnant? What if they decide to leave the military and go raise a family? What if women don’t sign up at all? But, my favorite is this one:

And there are the perennial concerns about unit cohesion. Will allowing women into intense fighting situations undermine the morale of all-male combat units?

Now where have we heard that kind of argument before? Let me see…. OH RIGHT. When we debated Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Oh my, if we let gay people stop hiding their gayness, straight men will feel uncomfortable and it will undermine their morale!

Let me just take a moment to call Bullshit on this argument. Say it with me, people: BULLSHIT.

Just from a military standpoint, anyone who enters the armed forces is trained to do a lot of things that many civilians never even dream of. If you can learn to do this:

“… ground combat, nose-to-nose with the bad guys, living in the mud, eating what’s on your back, no hygiene and no TV.”

And not whine, then you can learn to deal with some ladies in your unit.

But beyond that, I would really like us to get away from all this damn coddling going on. Yes, coddling. A whole chunk of the DADT debate was shaped by this sense that men’s sensibilities are, apparently, just too damn delicate to deal with the possibility that Joe over there might like to look at penises now and then. My advice to these men is: SUCK IT UP.

Even if the men in our military are ill-prepared to deal with the thought of having to serve in combat units with women, that does not mean we should continue to keep women out. It means we need to make the men in the military better people. It means that we have to stop privileging the hurt feelings and, frankly, silly whining of a bunch of backwards-thinking people in general over what is fair and right.

Coddling has never helped anyone, in the end. And, honestly? I’m so tired of everyone having to tiptoe around dudes in order to get shit done in this country. Just do what’s right. If certain of us want to whine and cry about it, treat them like the toddlers they so obviously are.

Coddling Is For Toddlers, Not Grown-Ass Men -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

I’m probably not going to be willing to talk about this much after today. Because I have a life and responsibilities outside of fandom. Ones that are frankly much more likely to yield good results from time investment than arguing with dumb motherfuckers about basic civics lessons (the next person to make a free speech argument at me about uninviting Moon will get laughed at very loudly), or explaining for the 10,000th time why the framing of terrorist as Muslim by default is ignorant, racist, offensive, and dumb as hell. Both of those conversations are remedial, and if you think I have no patience for 101 conversations I’ll let you figure out I feel about 098 discussions at this stage of the game.

So, here’s the thing about WisCon. The ideal and the reality are in two different rooms. Case in point, my first trip to WisCon was by turns awesome and awful. I spent the first day I was there in 2009 doing panels and hanging out with friends. For some reason I thought that I needed to branch out and meet some new people my second day. This was one of my stupidest ideas to date, and a mistake I won’t repeat. Why? Because wandering around on my own as one of the new black faces in the crowd I discovered that lots of people felt entitled to walk up to me and demand my time. Someone actually asked me to teach them about race within two seconds of reading my badge. Just came right out, and very earnestly requested that I spend my afternoon teaching them. That…did not end well. Then there were the people who just stared into the POC safe space room like it was a particularly interesting zoo exhibit complete with pointing. And the infamous panel on Rape in Sci-Fi, and some other less than stellar interactions with random folks who clearly had thoughts about me, but lacked the stones to express them directly. Yeah, thinking back to that weekend I can’t remember what possessed me to want to go back to WisCon this year.

But I did. And I stuck to friends and friends of friends who I knew would not harsh my squee. And it was awesome. I got to talk about fannish things with people who got it, eat tasty foods at new places, and drink some very creative drinks that left me quite bubbly. It was exactly what a trip to a con should be for someone like me. Because I don’t go to WisCon to be an example of my race, a teaching tool, a teacher, or even to prove that I’m not secretly someone else (at last count I was a white woman, a white man, and an internet construct), I go to WisCon to have the closest thing to a good time that I can at a con. And I say it that way because in general I hate conventions. I’m claustrophobic (on my very best day it is all I can do to share an elevator with more than three people), and large crowds are a particular kind of hell for me. So, I don’t (regardless of how much the subject matter might interest me) go to many things where there are lots of people in small spaces. In fact, if it weren’t for the need to get my name out there as a writer and for Verb Noire (which is currently defunct for a lot of reasons) I probably wouldn’t go to any conventions. Ever.

And so, when I volunteered to help out at WisCon it had a lot to do with the fact that it is a feminist con. One that is ostensibly progressive and anti-racist. After all if I’m going to attend something that requires me to go against all of my instincts I should at least believe in its mission right? Right. And I do believe that WisCon wants to be a progressive anti-racist space. Is that always happening? Well no. There are humans involved after all, and we do tend to screw things up despite our best intentions. But for the most part there is a sense that WisCon is trying to get it right. Or at least for me there was that sense until Moon posted her screed and then refused to listen or engage in any real discussion. And after it became clear that she should not be honored by a progressive anti-racist feminist organization it was especially to see people advocating keeping her as a GOH anyway. Because apparently even though her words were directly antithetical to WisCon’s ideals it was more important to try to educate her/support her as a woman than it was to support the people she’d just insulted. And lots of those people admit they have no idea what was said beyond her post because she deleted all the comments. Well this is the internet and by the magic of screencaps you can see exactly why people did not want WisCon to honor her.

And yes, I am well aware that WisCon has probably unknowingly honored some bigots in the past. Because feminism is fraught with all kinds of issues around race, class, religion, and gender and those things don’t magically go away because someone writes SF/F. However, once someone shares their bigotry publicly and makes it clear that they are not interested in hearing any dissenting opinions, then what is an organization with WisCon’s ideals supposed to do about honoring them? You cannot say “Well we’re supposed to be supporting women, and how can we support them by not honoring Moon?” and call yourself a feminist in my book. Well, you can, but then that intimates to me that you’ve decided that Muslim women don’t deserve support. Or maybe you’re saying that they don’t deserve support as long as they keep their faith. One that you know nothing about, and much like Moon aren’t interested in learning anything about since that might mean confronting your own prejudices.

Honestly, if you’ve bought into conflating a religion with the politics of some people in power in some places that ascribe to that religion then I’m going to doubt your critical thinking skills. Because some of America’s best known domestic terrorists have been white Christian men. Yet no one is advocating insulting and oppressing all the white Christian men as a result of the Oklahoma City bombings, the KKK, the Aryan Nation, or any of those abortion clinic bombings and assassinations. In fact last I checked they’re still being held up as the good guys by a lot of people. Which makes sense since many white Christian men are good people. But no one expects them to wade in and change the minds of everyone that looks like them. It’s only when the conversation turns away from them that the expectation of one representing all starts to appear. Because othering and placing the onus on the other to prove their worth is a very popular tactic with people who want to pretend they are not bigots.

So, if you’re planning on skipping WisCon to protest Moon’s invite being retracted? Go for it. That’s your right. After all there’s a reason Moon’s arguments are very similar to others that have been published over the years. Oh sometimes the subject matter was slightly different, but if you substitute any other ethnic group you can probably find a version addressing blacks, Asians, Jews, and even the Irish somewhere. Because these attitudes are nothing new, and they’re widespread, and frankly if you ascribe to them I’d rather you not come to WisCon and mess with our good time. I want to squee over Nisi Shawl and talk to my friends and not have to worry about sitting in a room full of bigots who think any of us are beholden to prove to them why their prejudices are wrong. Stay home, and let WisCon take another step toward being progressive, feminist, and anti-racist.

Yet Another WisCon post or Why This Black Woman Isn’t Your Friend -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

You People Are Out Of Your Goddamned Minds -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

1. Because of RaceFail, doncha know. It’s just so hard to be racist when all of your friends are totally against it!
2. I know people think the same thing about me — that I say what i do just to stir up shit and get attention. Because it’s so totally fun being an activist and working to eliminate racism and sexism. It is just too, too exciting feeling all the time like there is a giant group of people out there that thinks nasty thoughts about me, or wishes harm on me, or thinks I’m less than nothing because I’m a black person or a woman or queer or any combination thereof. I absolutely love that! And if I open my mouth even a little bit to say: Hey, that’s not cool, that is hurtful, that is fundamentally wrong, suddenly I am the problem? What even worse: I am not the only person in the community to whom this paragraph could apply.