Month: May 2018 (Page 1 of 2)

Intersectionality is a lens through which it is possible to understand an array of multifaceted identities that constitute who we are as human beings. This blog aims at explaining the concept of intersectionality taking into account its early meaning and modern understandings acquired more recently. Afterwards, it will narrow the focus on the TV series Gleeto provide an on-screen illustration of intersectionality, in the contemporary United States.

The term intersectionality was first coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to describe the condition in which a group of five black women found themselves: after suing their employer, General Motors, for discrimination, they were told they could make a complaint on grounds of race or sex discrimination, given that the combination of the two forms of oppression wouldn’t have taken into consideration by the court. Crenshaw asserted that it was impossible to consider the experience of being a black woman in terms of being a woman or being black separately, and elaborated the theory of intersectionality. The theory states that an individual constitutes a melting pot of unique identities which can only be analyzed when society considers these identities altogether, not independently.Thus, oppression against people who are discriminated through the combination of more than one identity trait is greater than the sum of its parts. The identity traits to which Crenshaw refers are, for instance, sex, gender, race, socio-economic status, ethnicity, religious belief, sexual orientation, age, ability/disability etc.

The TV series Gleeprovides a fitting on-screen example of how individuals can be oppressed and discriminated against because of the combination of identity markers that they embody. Examining the characters, it is possible to assert that a wide range of identities, such as different sexual orientations, genders, abilities/disabilities, backgrounds etc., has been displayed on screen in order to serve as a source of inspiration for people struggling for social acceptance. On the other hand, the series has been also criticized for having dealt with issues, such as race and disability, a little bit light-heartedly. However, on the whole, the series constitutes an anchor for onscreen representations of diversity and public opinion has generally appreciated its attempt to give voice to oppressed, marginalized, and invisible populations.

But let’s stop for a moment and forget about on-screen representation: what is the future of intersectionality in everyday life of what is called the Trump era? The recent election of President Donald Trump, and in particular the message that he conveys by means of his public figure’s speeches and initiatives, seem to suggest that there will be little room for intersectionality. Ableism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, sexual harassment, etc. seem to be integral components of his political language. Nevertheless, right when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Intersectional Feminism and public representation are the answers to ensure that no one, no bearer of diverse identity traits will be left behind, but will be respected and represented as he/she should be.

To conclude, thanks to Crenshaw’s cleverness and consequent on-screen representations, nowadays intersectionality plays a crucial role, not only within feminist theories, but also for everyone’s everyday life, in the attempt to better the conditions of US social scenario. The only way we can consider our future is teaching our children how to treat one another with respect without oppressions of any kind, preaching Intersectional Feminism.

Media representation matters. There is no longer any question about it. But how that representation should be expressed in the film industry, now that is something we have yet to agree on. Particularly when it comes to the representation of Black people in America, Hollywood has made big strides in the last few years. Only a few decades ago, to have a big blockbuster with a mostly all-black cast would have been unthinkable. Today, Black Panther(2018) has surpassed the $1 billion mark in worldwide revenueandMoonlight(2016) has won the Oscar for best picture in a ceremony that made history by breaking the record of wins for Black Americans. But as Black representation reaches new milestones year after year, one cannot help but wonder if the new diversity trends in Hollywood will actually lead us where we want to go.

The history of Black representation in America has an atrocious past. The toxic depictions conceived by the racism of minstrel showsand the exclusion of Black people from the industry were perpetuated and consolidated by Hollywood filmsduring the first half of the twentieth century. Even as filmmakers became more conscious about diversity, the “fixes” that Hollywood offered to the representation problem led to further stereotyping and to the development of tokenism(the hiring of a small number of people from under-represented groups in only a symbolic effort for racial equality). These mistakes have proven that representation must be done consciously and carefully lest it createsmore harm than good. 

Today, much of the debate that surrounds representation in Hollywood has concentrated on casting choices. Which actors get to be cast in which roles and how much race dictates that decision has been a subject of discussion for filmmakers and audiences alike. The debate between colorblind vs. color-conscious casting(whether or not race should be taken into consideration when makingcasting decisions) has shown that representation is a much more nuanced issue than the number ofBlack faces we see on the screen. While colorblind casting did give us the wonderful Idris Elbaas Heimdall in the Thorseries, that decision stillmeansa Black person playing a part written by and for a White man. And while color-conscious casting allows for more storytelling that takes into account racial issues, how can we just sit and expect a majoritarily White industryto go for such stories?

The bottom line is: while casting does make a difference in representation, it is not the only angle from which to tackle this issue. In the music video for Jay-Z’s ‘Moonlight,’director Alan Yangoffers a taste of what the Hollywood trend is today by giving us a replica of a Friends’episode with an all-black cast. The video, however, subverts that trend by questioning the intention behind the re-telling of a White story with Black actors. Yang’s ‘Moonlight’ suggests that the answer to representation is not in which color we see on the screen, but in who gets to tell their own story.

By casting Black actors who wrote their own shows (Jerrod Carmichael, Issa Rae) and referencing the wonderful filmMoonlight(2016), Jay-Z’s video is an ode to new black creative voices. It is the statement that true representation in Hollywood means diversity not only on screen but from the moment of creation.

The United States is something of a peculiar actor in international affairs.  It is widely considered the global hegemon – that is, the state to which all other states submit in order to ensure global stability and security.  Many theorists argue that it has chosen to fulfil this role by acting through international institutions such as the United Nations.  Indeed, it has been the driving force behind a number of multilateral treaties aimed at promoting cross-border co-operation.  Yet, others contend that the US acts unilaterally on the world stage, instrumentalising international institutions in order to project its own power and assert its dominance.

An example which perfectly characterises this dichotomy arises in the context of international treaties.  The US consistently chooses not to become a member of international treaties, including many widely accepted international treaties considered important for establishing and maintaining international co-operation.  Remarkably, in many cases, the US was an important part of the initiation and drafting of these very treaties.  As has been articulated by the American Kyoto Protocol negotiator, David Doniger, “the system is made in America, and Americans aren’t part of it”.

A look at the history of America and international treaties shows that the US is not unwilling to sign these documents in the first place.  Rather, the consistent barrier to US membership of international treaties is “ratification” – a form of domestic approval which is necessary in order for a treaty to become binding within a state.  Under the US constitution, treaties with the support of two-thirds of the Senate may be ratified.  The requirement of advice and consent from the legislature is not remarkable in itself. However, when considered in a comparative context, the supermajority requirement is notable.  It is much higher than both France and Germany, for example, where the threshold is a simple majority.

An illustration of the difficulties this requirement can pose is clearly seen in the efforts to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban-Treaty in the 1990s.  Soon after signing this ambitious document, President Clinton urged the Senate to authorise the ratification of the treaty.  After more than two years of struggle, it was decided that a resolution would be submitted to the Senate in 1999.  At this point, opponents of the treaty rallied for a fast-track of the vote in order to deprive the executive of sufficient time to lobby uncommitted Senators. The subsequent vote resulted in a defeat.

Structural explanations as well as partisan politics may explain the non-ratification of the CTBT, but analysis would be severely limited by stopping at this point. It is important to consider not just how, but whyone might oppose an international treaty.  An examination of the arguments of both academic and political opponents of international treaties highlights a fundamental discomfort with the ability of international institutions and their staff to constrain the freedom of action of the US.  Even regarding treaties that would require little policy change, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – which is modelled off domestic US legislation – the sovereignty argument gains considerable ground.  One explanation for this relates to the American understanding of nationalism. It has been argued that American nationalism places remarkable emphasis on sovereignty, to the extent that any constraint on freedom of action coming from outside the domestic system – even one in the USA’s own interests – is considered undesirable.  This pattern of behaviour suggests a worrying belief on the part of the US that it does not need to act in concert with the rest of the world in order to ensure its survival.

Non-membership of treaties puts the US in a vulnerable position – often it results in the US behaving in accordance with the treaties anyway, but being deprived of a “seat at the table”.  Understanding the logic behind this pattern is the first step to changing it; however, it would appear the explanations are so deep-seated and inextricably linked with the national identity of the American people that they will be neither quickly nor easily resolved.

Further Reading

US Rejects UN Treaty on Disability Rights amid GOP Opposition.  The Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/04/senate-rejects-un-treaty-disability

Why won’t the US Ratify the UN’s Child Rights Treaty. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/21/why-wont-the-u-s-ratify-the-u-n-s-child-rights-treaty/?utm_term=.2f22d9e28891

Why hasn’t the US signed the Law of the Sea Treaty.  Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states-sign-law-sea-treaty/3364342.html

Treaties. United States Senate.https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Individuals have been labelled and registered since the beginning of the emigration to the United States. These practices have continued until the present day, and perceived insecurities in the world politics have without a doubt made these practices more acceptable in the name of a national se-curity. According to social psychologists, the classification of people and objects is a common trait among human beings, and its original purpose in cognitive processing is to make sense of the complicated world and effectively and quickly produce essential information on the surrounding environment. This character has for centuries helped human beings to cope with the flood of sen-sory information and to survive in situations which they might have considered threatening. 

Nevertheless, a classification of individuals, and especially racial profiling, might lead to misunderstandings and to a serious discrimination. Negative effects of racial profiling include, for instance, denied opportunities both in education and in labor market, limited future prospects, de-creased political activity, and even difficulties in finding a decent accommodation if possible fu-ture tenants are subjected to racism. Therefore, it is important to research and address negative consequences of racial profiling and create practices to prevent them. 

Social processes related to immigration are often explained by using assimilationist theo-ries on immigration. These theories regard the society as a consensual structure and the arrival of immigrants usually represent a disruption for the society. Assimilation of the newcomers is a meas-ure that restores status quo in the society. According to these theories, immigrants represent a minority group in their new homeland, and acculturation of values and norms of majority is an inevitable phase in assimilation process. Sociologist Milton Gordon considers this acculturation as the beginning of the assimilation process and distinguishes several subsequent stages of assimila-tion. Furthermore, he distinguishes three ideological stances towards immigrants. Several scholars argue that Anglo conformity and the melting-pot thesis are prevailing ideologies cherished in the contemporary United States. Both of these ideologies support discrimination in a form or another. 

Perceived ethnicity might have positive consequences as it creates an in-group feeling and solidarity among individuals. On the other hand, this categorization is the first stage of ethnic 2 

profiling with its negative outcomes. Marcos Pizarro claims that students with certain ethnic back-ground are not even expected to be successful in school or life. They are subjected to disciplinary measures more often than their peers, who belong to the majority, and, due to discrimination, they might lack learning opportunities in the school. Furthermore, stereotypes produced and reproduced by the majority create and maintain an ethnic identity that in most cases has negative impacts on student’s school experiences and performance. It works like a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

American core society is constructed in a way that favors certain values and norms, and class mobility is still a rare phenomenon despite common images and stereotypes associated with the United States. True cultural pluralism does not yet exist in the United States, and therefore, second-generation immigrants face discrimination and prejudices. Physical features, available job opportunities and social factors are challenges these individuals face in the American society. It is possible to rise in social hierarchies but it often requires a strong assimilation, a certain character and hard work. Those individuals, who wish to maintain their class status, often cherish strong family ties and support family values instead of financial success. A minority status may also lead to a downward assimilation if a person with immigrant ancestors lacks support from his or her community and adopts a lifestyle that is in conflict with the values and norms of the core society 

Unfortunately, there is no quick solution for diminishing negative outcomes of racial pro-filing and discrimination. Education as well as a courage to act against discrimination seem to be the most effective tools in fighting against prejudices. Cherishing good relationships between hu-man groups and awareness of the harmful impacts of discrimination are the first steps on a path towards true equality in the American society. 

Bibliography: 

Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998. Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49 (1): 65–85. 

Pizarro, M. 2005, Chicanas and Chicanos in School: Racial Profiling, Identity Battles, and Em-powerment, University of Texas Press, Austin. 

Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2014. Immigrant America: A Portrait. 4th ed. Oak-land, California: University of California Press. 

———. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

The American Christian right and the Alt-right (Alternative right) served a major part in the victory of Donald Trump in the United States presidential election in 2016. This post gives an overview of these political movements that, although they differ from each other in many ways, still stand for the same president.

The American Christian right has existed throughout the twentieth century and is alive and well in 2018. The Christian right is a coalition of evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics who support infusing U.S. politics and legislation with what they define as Christian morals and traditional family values based on biblical teachings. The political movement became significant in the 1960s when the New Christian right started campaigning for mandatory school prayer in public schools, which the Supreme Court had ruled to be unlawful in the 1962 case of Engel vs. Vitale. The Christian right started organizing massive grassroots movements for school prayer, which created a strong base for local political activism and has been helpful in promoting contemporary issues, such as anti-abortion. This grassroots movement was also the base for the victory of President Donald Trump, as he got as much as 81% of all the evangelical Christian votes in the 2016 presidential election.

The Alt-right differs a lot from the Christian right, as it is not in any way a traditional political movement. The Alt-right is a loose coalition of Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and internet trolls, which has vague political goals mainly concerning white supremacy, the victory of Donald Trump, and the resistance of liberal politics and political correctness. The movement’s leader is Richard Spencer, who is the founder of altright.com, and who spoke for white supremacy and the presidency of Donald Trump. Later on, after the election of President Trump, both Spencer and Trump have condemned each other as Spencer has been let down by Trump’s policies and Trump has been forced to take a stance against white supremacists. Regardless of that, it is indisputable that the Alt-right had a big impact on the election of President Trump and during the elections, Trump was willing to receive this white supremacist support.

The issues that President Trump brought up in his campaign, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration and race, are issues that both the Christian right and the Alt-right address. What made Trump’s candidacy and victory so special, was how he managed to combine these groups, traditional Christian conservatives and Alt-right white supremacists, as the groups were able to choose the issues they found important. The Christian right was willing to accept Trump’s immoral behavior and racists statements because Trump was campaigning for issues they found important, such as pro-life stance and conservative morals. On the other hand, the Alt-right, which is not interested in religion, still stood behind Trump as he brought up issues concerning immigration and race using politically incorrect language. This unusual collaboration of different political goals contributed to the election of Donald Trump.

Media and news coverage seem to have changed in the United States in recent years. Different news sources have become increasingly politically polarized, and the change is inflicted both from top-down as well as bottom-up, as people can more easily critique different news sources via social media. Through the rise of Alt-Right media and other not-so-reputable news sources it can be hard to discern the tradition an objective and free press that has heretofore prevailed in the United States.

But the tradition is there, and its roots can be traced to the founding of the United States. The freedom of the press is embedded in the Constitution’s First Amendment, making it the only institution having freedom of speech. The idea was that media would serve as a watchdog for the people towards the government, and as a marketplace of ideas, where there would be an abundance of news sources, giving people a fair, unbiased spectrum of news and help them to formulate their own opinion. The Watergate scandal leading to the resignation of President Richard Nixon during the early 1970s is perhaps the most known example of watchdog media, and the tradition continues to this day, as President Trump’s speeches are feverishly fact-checked.[1]

In the recently published 2018 World Press Freedom Index,Unites States ranks as the 45th out of 180 countries, its position once again falling from the previous year. For a country that highlights freedom of the press in its constitution the position seems quite peculiar, if one is not aware of the contemporary political context. President Trump’s blatant dismissal of large media platforms as well as declaring them as “the enemy of the American people” creates a hostile environment for freedom of speech.[2] The clear attempts to sway the public to focus on news from a certain more favorable angle for the president undermines the notion of a marketplace of ideas. As well as the hostile environment created for journalists and others working in the field of media, the United States’ stance is hurt by the absence of a shield law for the journalists. Even though many of the 50 states have imposed shield laws to protect journalists and their right not to disclose their sources of information, there is no shield law at the federal level in the U.S.[3]This has led, both during the Obama administration and the current one, to increasing prosecution of whistleblowers.

To conclude, the media environment in the United States has become increasingly tense in the past couple of years, and the situation is amplified as the current president continues to undermine various media platforms and news sources. But the press is not willing to give up their long standing tradition in the American society. Reporters and news outlets refuse to be silenced even though they are continuously being pushed down and shut out by the current president,[4]and they have the undeniable backing of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

References and external links:

Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index, 2018. https://rsf.org/en/united-states. Link accessed 25.4.2018.

American Civil Liberties Union, Free Speech. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech. Link accessed 25.4.2018.

[1]See for instance: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/us/trump-cpac-speech-factcheck.htmlLink accessed 25.4.2018

[2]See for instance: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/832708293516632065Link accessed 25.4.2018

[3]To read more on the protection journalists do and do not enjoy: https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privilege_shield_law_primer.php. Link accessed 26.4.2018

[4]See for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicerand http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/trump-press-bullies-journalists-1202783394/. Links accessed 26.4.2018

After the Cold War, the U.S. interests have shifted towards the rising power of China. During the twenty-first century, China has become the second-largest economy in the world and second-largest trading partner of the U.S. and it plays a major role in creating American jobs and economic growth. However, China’s economic rise can be seen as problematic since one of the main ways China influences other countries is through trade and business ties. Both the United States and China have used varied tools of soft power in order to gain global influence and a lot of these power plays have been acted out in the Asia-Pacific region.

Despite the fact that the U.S. economy is closely tied to China, during the Obama administration the United States conducted a strategy to balance out China in the Asia-Pacific region in order to restrict China’s rise to a hegemonic power in the Asian continent. Under the Obama administration the U.S. introduced the Asia Pivot and started to reinforce its presence especially in East Asia and Southeast Asia. The United States tried to bind Southeast Asian economies more tightly to the U.S. with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and made efforts in order to strengthen U.S.—Asia defense cooperation.

However, under the Trump administration the U.S. approach towards China and the Asia-Pacific region has shifted significantly. Before his election President Trump infamously accused China of raping the United States and was quite vocal about China’s unfair trade practices. Trump certainly made it clear that he will not let China overpower the United States. Throughout his campaign and first year of presidency Trump has emphasized the “America First” policy and the importance of supporting the U.S. economy and American jobs. However, Trump’s America First policies and nationalist approach have changed the U.S. role in the global community and increased feeling of uncertainty among the U.S. allies around the world. The U.S. role in the world has been seen as declining even before Trump’s presidency, but it seems more and more clear that under the Trump administration the United States is paying less and less attention to its allies – especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Trump has backed out of the TPP and cut down investments to Southeast Asia substantially.

Even though Trump has been relatively consistent promoting his America First policy, his approach to China and the Asia-Pacific in general has been conflicting. After his meeting with President Xi Jinping it seemed that the two leaders had found some common ground and Trump has openly expressed his admiration of Xi’s leadership style. At the same time, the Trump administration recognized China as a strategic competitor in the National Defense Strategy of 2018 and set up heavy tariffs for Chinese solar panels – an act that led to accusations of starting a trade war with China. Allowing China to gain more economic influence in Asia while complicating the U.S.-China trade might not be the smartest move considering over half a million American jobs are reliant on Chinese imports of toys and clothes alone.

There is a clear shift from American Global Primacy policy to Trump’s America First policy which causes uncertainty in the minds of both U.S. allies and competitors. It seems Trump is trying to ‘’Make America Great Again’’ yet his policies towards China and the Asia-Pacific are actually enabling China’s further rise and damaging the U.S. economy and American jobs.

Sources:

Bateman, Joshua (2018). If Trump thinks he’s taking steel tariff war to China, he’s wrong. That war is already over. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/if-trump-thinks-hes-taking-steel-tariff-war-to-china-hes-wrong.html (visited 10.4.2018)

Blackwill, Robert D., Tellis, Ashley J. (2015). Revising U.S. grand strategy toward China. Council on Foreign Relations.

Brooks, Karen B. (2016). What Future for the Asia Pivot Under Trump?.Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/what-future-asia-pivot-under-trump (visited 13.3.2018)

Espinoza, Charlotte, Miller, Terry, Scissors, Derek (2012). Trade Freedom: How Imports Support U.S. Jobs. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/trade-freedom-how-imports-support-us-jobs (visited 24.4.2018)

Lum, Thomas G (2010). China and the U.S: Comparing Global Influence. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

U.S. Department of Defense (2018). National Defence Strategy of The United States of America. https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (visited 10.4.2018)

Shambaugh, David (2012). Tangled Titans: The United States and China. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Shane, Daniel (2018). Did Trump just start a trade war with China?. CNN.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/23/news/economy/trump-solar-china-trade-war/index.html (visited 10.4.2018)

The Telepgraph (2017). Donald Trump congratulates Xi Jinping on Chinese leader’s ‘extraordinary elevation’. The Telegraph.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/donald-trump-congratulates-xijinping-chinese-leaders-extraordinary/ (visited 10.4.2018)

The White House (2015). Advancing the Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-sheet-advancing-rebalance-asia-and-pacific (visited 9.4.2018)

The White House (2018). President Donald J. Trump’s Foreign Policy Puts America First. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-foreign-policy-puts-america-first/ (visited 10.4.2018

Contemporary American society has established a foundation of understanding autism in the last ten years, with awareness campaigns like World Autism Awareness Month and the emergence of autistic representation in American popular culture.                                                                                                                                   However, the neurotypical perceptions of autism are still clouded when it comes to addressing the gender issues that exist within the autistic community, and popular culture still misrepresents or fails to represent autistic individuals. Therefore, it is not presenting autistic characters who can more effectively educate neurotypical society.

It can’t be denied that there have been significant improvements of autistic representation in American popular culture and media within recent years, like ABC’s ‘The Good Doctor,’ which aims to move away from “the stereotypical versions of people with autism that have been shown on television and in certain movies in the past.” However, popular culture still fails to present an autistic character which is not solely recognised by neurotypical society as being a “‘savant.”’ As Wenn Lawson expresses, “if you read a book like The Curious Incident of a Dog in the Night, people think oh that’s autism and we are all like the lad in the story and it’s absolutely untrue. Very few of us actually are or Rainman[…] we’re not all like Raymond in Rainman.”

American popular culture and media are also failing to present to the autistic society a fully realized and relatable female autistic character for female individuals to feel connected to. There is still a dire need for women of autism to be presented in the forefront of American popular culture (other than the sole example of HBO’s ‘Temple Grandin’), this only being recently touched upon by Rachel Israel’s debut film, ‘Keep the Change’, with the female autistic character, Sarah, and the representation of her sexuality in offhanded comments like “I find you really, really smoking hot and so sexy.”

Leading on from the discussion of the lack of female autistic representation within American popular culture, the neurotypical world has still to recognise that there is a feminist cry that has been buried deep inside the hearts of female autistics and needs to be let out. Lawson states that “there needs to be a more feminist approach to autism which is often seen as owned by men,” autism being defined in the past as a condition that functions as “an extreme male brain.”

Sarai Pahla shares in a Ted Talk her experiences of dating, illustrating the pressures that exist for a female autistic in a neurotypical sphere, which demands certain expectations of women in romantic scenarios. Carrie Beckwith-Fellows, meanwhile, discusses in her Ted Talk about the gender issue that exists within the autistic community itself, describing how women of autism are the “invisible diversity” within both neurotypical and autistic spheres. What is in desperate need of recognition is that women of autism are “a minority within an existing minority,” and therefore are at risk of suffering deep mental issues because of it, due to the decreased amount of attention and service that female autistics receive in comparison to male autistics (especially since the diagnostic ratio of men to women are 4:1). As Liane Holliday Willey (a woman of Asperger’s) explains, female autistics are “more prone to self-injury and self-blame” when feeling pressured by neurotypical expectations and therefore need a support system that will keep women of autism from “hating and hurting” themselves.

Overall, what the unheard voices of autistic Americans demand from their neurotypical counterparts is the opportunity to raise deeper, underlying issues that exist within the autistic community through the channels of popular culture and the opportunity for the feminist autistic cries to ring out loud and clear for all of the neurotypical world to hear.

Sources:

Freddie Highmore says The Good Doctor aims to challenge people’s perceptions of autism, Daily Mail, 7August 2017 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4766506/Freddie-Highmore-Good-Doctor-defies-autism-stereotype.html#ixzz5Cyi1zDEE

Why Women With Autism Are Invisible, Anna North, 3 April 2012 https://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/why-women-with-autism-are-invisble?utm_term=.awWrYDQmA#.lmPPmDB63

Sarai Pahla, Ted Talk, 21 November 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MA7o6FgPRU&t=784s

Carrie Beckwith-Fellows, Ted Talk, 6 July 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2dhWWUyQ4&t=244s

‘Keep the Change’ Film Review, The Hollywood Reporter, 12 March 2018  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/keep-change-1087460

Wenn Lawson Podcast Interview, 7 September 2015 http://www.mapyourlearning.com/podcasts/autism-dr-wenn-lawson/

“This plot is bigger than me, it’s generational hatred

It’s genocism, it’s grimy, little justification

I’m African-American, I’m African

I’m black as the heart of a fuckin’ Aryan

I’m black as the name of Tyrone and Dareous” ( Kendrick Lamar, 2015)

Just a couple of weeks ago Kendrick Lamar was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, as the first non-classical or jazz artist ever. In his music Lamar deals with issues such as racism, gang violence and police brutality and his lyrics have been compared to the work of the writers James Baldwin and Ta-Nehesi Coates. Last year, I read Coates’ book “Between the World and Me” while listening to Lamar’s latest, very praised album “Damn.” The way Coates writes about his blackness, about living as a black man, about having a black body in the United States strikes me as similar to the way Kendrick Lamar raps about his blackness, about living as a black man, about having a black body in the United states.

The police brutality of recent years has mobilized people all over the US and given spark to the Black Lives Matter movement. It arose in the wake of the murder of the black teenager Trayvon Martin in 2013. The following year, the Black Lives Matter Movement proved integral to the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the eighteen-year-old Michael Brown was killed by a police officer. Many black musicians have responded by using their art to raise awareness of issues of racism and police violence—and to voice their own distress. A protest at Cleveland State University demonstrates the intersection of the grassroots movement and music. There activists responded to being harassed by police by chanting rapper Lamar’s song “Alright.” The same chant could be heard during protests against Donald Trump in Chicago in 2016.

“We gon’ be alright / Do you hear me, do you feel me? We gon’ be alright”

(Lamar, 2015)

In what may seem to be hopeless situations, activists have drawn hope and strength from the Lamar’s song, and it has, in turn, become something of an anthem for the movement. “Alright” creates an “us”—the group that has been targeted for oppression—and contains both self-affirmation and criticisms of police violence.

“Nigga, and we hate po-po

Wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho’ “

(Lamar, 2015)

Lamar has managed to describe in just a few paragraphs what so many members of the black community feel. In spite of the anger and the frustration, Lamar urges the black community to stand together – by rapping “We gon’ be alright”, he refers to the whole community. “Alright” has been a song that encourages and brings the black community together. And that, to me, makes him one of the most important artists of our generation.

After causing a great deal of uproar in the technology industry, the Federal Communications Commission’s controversial “Restoring Internet Freedom” order came into effect on 23 April 2018. The order repealed the Obama administration’s 2015 ruling on net neutrality and has been called “the end of the free internet” by its most fervent critics. But what exactly is net neutrality and why should we care about the issue?

In short, net neutrality refers to the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T should treat all web traffic equally. The 2015 rules were implemented to enforce this idea with stricter rules and increased regulation regarding discriminatory web traffic treatment. The removal of these rules reintroduced the possibility for ISPs to speed up, slow down, or outright block content for their customers at will. The most pessimistic critics of the repeal have expressed fears of censorship and inequality, while the less apocalyptic visions of a world without net neutrality involve increased prices for internet users, and an overall decrease in the quality of the customer experience due to confusing bundling of service packages or slower connections on competing services. Although the battle for net neutrality is being fought in the U.S., the issue has global implications due to the internet being a worldwide phenomenon: if American “internet culture” is damaged by the loss of net neutrality, the effects will be felt by consumers and audiences all over the world.

It is widely accepted that paid prioritization would be detrimental to smaller websites and businesses, as only the big ones could afford “fast-lane” service and incentivize traffic to themselves. The big winners of the repeal are the major cable companies who now have less regulation to worry about in their internet services. For President Trump and the Republican party, in turn, it’s another symbolic victory of reversing Obama-era legislation. The repeal then mainly serves corporate interests and Republican sensibilities, however much the FCC leadership would have you believe that the issue is non-partisan.

The FCC voted to pass the repeal order last December despite criticism from the tech industry, but this has not impeded activist movements from keeping the fight going. One of the last attempts to undo the FCC’s ruling is through a Congressional Review Act, which would allow Congress to deem the repeal unlawful. To pass Senate, the Review Act would only need one more vote, though it seems unlikely that it would ultimately make its way past the president. Several states are also in the process of drafting their own laws that would bring back the 2015 rules, but it is still unclear whether this kind of legislation will be deemed legal by the federal government.

At the time of writing it is unclear whether the efforts to undo the “Restoring Internet Freedom” order will be successful. The end of the internet as we know it may not be upon us quite yet, however, as the buzz around the issue should restrain ISPs from implementing abusive changes in their services for a while in fear of invoking the internet-using public’s ire. Perhaps pressure from citizens and the states will eventually make the FCC go back on its decision, although as of now it seems clear that we will need to wait for a change of administration in the Oval Office for any real change to happen.