A Response To “The Pressure to Cover”

By: Jackson Schuyler

Yoshino’s article was a stark reminder of the state of the world today. We live in a time and place where we are most often outwardly tolerant or at least attempt to appear so. Yet when doors are closed, or settings changed from group to individual these views and ideas seem to disappear or be reworked in some capacity. Where someone accepts someone else purely in public but shuns them in private. Or where in the case of this article where someone will be viewed or treated differently if they chose to be themselves, and not a cookie cutter definition that is expected of them. Often people who don’t fit into the average social norm or structure are expected to act in a certain way. To fit into a box that others can relate to or work with based on and defined by broad stereotypes or misconceptions that are associated with them. Some examples of this being the idea of the Gay best friend or the Gay guy being attracted to every man, or the Gay guy being extremely feminine and so forth. Things that often dehumanize and or boil people down to a single trait or characteristic, with no little to new regard to the individual and who they are. So often you see something like what is talked about in this article. The Idea of “Covering” which is the idea of trying to cover yourself. Or what is viewed by society as “shortcomings” or negative parts of who you are. Which boils down to more often or not attempting to constantly disprove and or go against, preconceived traits or characteristics that are associated with one’s background. He puts this idea into fantastic light with a conversation he has with his colleague. With putting it in a way of how this can affect one’s life if one does not “Cover” properly.

“When I began teaching at Yale Law School in 1998, a friend spoke to me frankly. “You’ll have a better chance at tenure,” he said, “if you’re a homosexual professional than if you’re a professional homosexual.” Out of the closet for six years at the time, I knew what he meant. To be a “homosexual professional” was to be a professor of constitutional law who “happened” to be gay. To be a “professional homosexual” was to be a gay professor who made gay rights his work. Others echoed the sentiment in less elegant formulations. Be gay, my world seemed to say. Be openly gay, if you want. But don’t flaunt.” (Kenji Yoshino).

Before I read this article, I had a similar idea to this which I called being “Marketable”. What I mean by this is the same as “Covering”. With “Marketing” being when someone is diverse or different in some form but never in a non-acceptable manner. They are non-conventional in some way yet never enough to alienate the public or make one uncomfortable with their level of difference. Being able to check off the box for individuality and difference, yet still fit into the societal standards enough to be appreciated by a wide audience as possible. With them still being able to be “Marketable” and still reach a wide and broad demographic as possible. With one of my favorite examples being Ellen, as we all know Ellen Degeneres is lesbian and has been married to her partner for years. Yet have you ever seen a photo of her with her wife or have you seen her speak up on LGBTQ+ issues or problems? Another example is Pete Buttigeige who I’ve heard more about his time in the army than the fact that he is the only gay candidate for president that I know of in recent history. I’ve never in my time following this election have I heard him speak on LGBTQ+ issues or problems, I’ve never even seen his husband in any capacity, and I struggle to even find photos of him online. These are examples of “Covering” or “Marketable”, these people are open with who they are yes, but they downplay it and minimize it till it’s almost nonexistent. I’ve experienced this firsthand I’m gay, yet I would say that I’m heavily covering for it. I do so because it is essential to be successful which is sad but the reality. I know that if I was open with my sexuality on a broad level I would most certainly not be where I am today. Hiding my true self and even lying to others has and most likely will be better for me for the foreseeable future. Often people are viewed as one thing or have one thing define them. Like having the fact that your gay be your personality or effect every decision in your life. This simply is a ludicrous idea to even consider, so much more than one thing influences a person and their actions and to assume otherwise is simply false. Yet this idea also applies to race and gender, with them also containing limiting and dehumanizing expectations that they are often expected to uphold too. Yet with the example of those above and this article I know that I am not alone in this. I also know that this applies to those who lie outside of the LGBTQ+ community, with people having “Cover” for things such as their race and or gender. With this being far harder for other individuals who face harder “Covering” expectations and experience far harsher backlash if they don’t submit to these cruel standards. Yet at theirs seemingly a light at the end of the tunnel, with this articles publication and many movements and attempts to normalize and standardize things. Things that would have been thought of unheard of to do in public such as having a man wear a dress and or having a same sex couple be able to hold hands in public have become in a small way normalized. Which not leaps forwards, but crawling progress is progress, nonetheless. I hope with the future people can have a far better level of understanding and acceptance. Where an individual’s worth won’t be assumed by how they present or carry themselves. But by how they act and are as a person with no consideration being given to irrelevant or uncontrollable qualities that are their defining characteristics. I just simple hope for a future where we don’t have to “Cover” or “Market” ourselves to be successful, and have people be judged by more than one part of their being.

Sources:

Yoshino, K. (2006, January 15). The Pressure to Cover. Retrieved September 26, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/the-pressure-to-cover.html

A Response to “What Does It Take to ‘Assimilate’ In America”

 By: Jackson Schuyler

Lalami tries to define the word assimilation with its most modern interpretation. Using the current global standard and even the practical application of it, to fully define the word and its implications. The way Lalami goes about defining it is not only practical, it is precise and profound. Rather than simply choosing what the word means on a local or national scale, she instead focuses on it in a global context. Making a fantastic effort to get create profound basis of how this word can be applied in different situations and contexts. With it not having a simple one size fits all definitions of it and its applications. She starts this with a discussion of the words literal roots as she slowly shifts to its current standard of definition.     

“What does assimilation mean these days? The word has its roots in the Latin ‘‘similar,’’ meaning to make similar. Immigrants are expected, over an undefined period, to become like other Americans, a process metaphorically described as a melting pot. But what this means, in practice, remains unsettled. After all, Americans have always been a heterogeneous population — racially, religiously, regionally. By what criteria is an outsider judged to fit into such a diverse nation? For some, assimilation is based on pragmatic considerations, like achieving some fluency in the dominant language, some educational or economic success, some familiarity with the country’s history and culture. For others, it runs deeper and involves relinquishing all ties, even linguistic ones, to the old country. For yet others, the whole idea of assimilation is wrongheaded, and integration — a dynamic process that retains the connotation of individuality — is seen as the better model. Think salad bowl, rather than melting pot: Each ingredient keeps its flavor, even as it mixes with others.” (Lalami).

Lalami begins to discuss the most common example that one thinks of with assimilation, that being the American melting pot standard that we often think of. Yet she also points out that this is not a flawless and or even particularly constant example. When one moves to a new place they most often pick up or attempt to change their habits and actions to better fit in with the local culture and norms. This is not a foreign concept; it is only human nature to fit in. In a broad sense, it can be considered like changing yourself to fit in with a group of friends. With you trying to do something to gain their respect or impress them.  Not only that, but also being put to a larger group or even a society. With the same key concept of trying to make a stark change to fit in or be accepted, with the cost of losing a part of yourself. She touches upon this idea of the loss of oneself to fit in. How often this is simply seen as the false golden standard of assimilation and even at times its goal. As it is often seen as the changing of one’s identity to fit in or be a part of the local social standard and or norm. Or as she brings up that it can be even more extreme with the complete loss of one’s identity.

“But for those who believe that assimilation is a matter of identity — as many on the far right do — nothing short of the abandonment of all traces of your heritage will do. The alt-right pundit Milo Yiannopoulos, an immigrant himself, told a campus group in January that ‘‘the hijab is not something that should ever be seen on American women.’’ The perception that visible signs of religious identity are indicators of deep and sinister splits in society can lead to rabid fears of wholly imaginary threats. Several states have passed anti-Shariah measures, in fear that Muslims will seek to impose their own religious laws on unsuspecting Americans. The fact that Muslims make up 1 percent of the U.S. population and that such an agenda is both a statistical and a Constitutional impossibility has done nothing to temper this fear. It is no longer a fringe belief: The white nationalist Richard Spencer told a reporter that he once bonded with Stephen Miller, now a senior White House adviser, over concerns that immigrants from non-European countries were not assimilating.” (Lalami).

This is often the harsh and horrible reality of assimilation, most often a simple changing of oneself and their actions is never enough. With the only acceptable goal being the total loss of one’s past and customs with a full embrace of the new culture and its norms. This happened to my family who were immigrants that were Irish and Dutch, with us losing all semblance of our heritage or past. I could not tell you a single tradition or holiday from these cultures or even anything about them in any form and this could be said for the rest of my family for the most part. The only part of my heritage that I have is that I own a claddagh ring, which in Irish culture symbolizes loyalty, friendship, and love. All of this would make me be a “successful” example of assimilation, which to make you consider the harsh reality of it. Is the complete and total loss of one’s past and culture a worthy price for one’s wide acceptance? I do not think it is and I even believe it to be ultimately un-American in nature. As we often but great value in individuality and freedom of thought and expression. But once again in true American fashion this only applies to the few. I have seen examples of this in my life at my high school. We had only a few diverse students from foreign backgrounds, with those from European origin being far more accepted and popular than those from a Non-European origin. When those from Europe had their differences brought up or mentioned they were placed on a pedestal and considered unique and even exotic. With them receiving a large amount of positive attention and praise. Yet in contrast those from Non-European origins had to hide their true selves and if they ever expressed it, they were met with harsh and cruel judgment. Often being bizarre and weird with their differences although being comparable to those from Europe, they were instead met with open hostility and severe judgment. This is not uncommon to see and is even often the norm. Therefore, I prefer the metaphor that Lalami gives of a salad bowl over a melting pot. Where individuals keep their differences yet still mix, and do not simply all conform to a single norm or standard. Differences even if they are often looked at as a hazard or hindrance are what make us strong. Having different and unique perspectives increases both efficiency and problem solving, both things we need in spades currently. That is why I solidly hope that this “Salad Bowl” idea that is put forward by Lalami gains more traction. I think it will do wonders to help create a more accepting society where differences are not seen as a hindrance but instead as an asset.

Citation:

Lalami, L. (2017, August 01). What Does It Take to ‘Assimilate’ in America? Retrieved October 02, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/magazine/what-does-it-take-to-assimilate-in-america.html?mcubz=0

Response to “The Open Secret of The Anti-Mom Bias at Work”

By: Jackson Schuyler

This article by Goldstien puts an idea into our collective consciousness that we rarely consider, the discrimination against mothers. One might be taken aback by this; they may think to themselves that this is preposterous, but it is a serious issue. Most assume that mothers are held in a high regard in society and given great leniency and consideration. While these views may be present in day to day life, they most assuredly do not take place in one of the most important places someone can be, the workplace. This harsh reality is fantastically articulated by Goldstien by her opening of her article.

“Last fall, I was in a meeting with a leader in women’s health, discussing re-entry-to-work programs for new mothers when, out of the blue, she began complaining about a former employee. This employee on their small team had gotten pregnant, the woman said, and it was a problem: “She was way too focused on her pregnancy. It was distracting her. I didn’t think she was going to be committed enough to the job, so I had to let her go.”

I looked at her, stunned. This woman — a mother herself — who worked on a range on initiatives to support women was openly and casually admitting to illegal discrimination.” (Goldstien).

This paints an apt picture of the situation, where the telling an employer of pregnancy is often considered a career suicide of sorts. With the false notion and the bizarre assumption that the birth of a child will lead dereliction of duty in a new mother’s carrier. With one of the most shocking parts having this discrimination coming from someone who was in a position of understanding and personal experience on the issue. One would assume a woman and a mother would consider and empathize with the employee that she let go rather than ruling her unfit to work. But sadly, this does not occur both here and in wide practice. New mothers often unjustly lose their professions and entire careers, simply by telling a fellow employee or superior that they are pregnant. With a paradigm shift in view occurring where seemingly all other traits and values of the individual being thrown to the wind. As their usefulness and skills are now seen as void, simply because they will have a child at some point soon. Now to say this is wrong and immoral should go without saying. These are blatant and exceedingly cruel examples of gender-based discrimination, as this is where someone’s job and income are most often needed most. But as one would assume as this is such a blatant example of gender-based discrimination why is it allowed to occur? The answer to this is both yes and no, there exists legal standards and mandates that forbid discrimination such as those found in Title VII. Yet these things still occur often in high frequency and are often met with stark resistance and backlash when questioned. Goldstien gives some examples of such situations where legal action was taken. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and such injustice was struck down.

“Lawsuits indicating the scale and scope of this type of discrimination abound. In a case in Illinois, a woman took her employer to court after he flat out admitted that he preferred to work with people without children. He then denied her promised compensation after she met her sales goals, which he had given to others who weren’t parents. She was eventually fired when she had to reschedule a meeting because of a sick child. (She filed a discrimination claim and won.)

In a case in Colorado, a woman was told openly that she was passed over for a promotion because it was thought that she wouldn’t want to relocate or work the 50 to 60 hours a week the promotion required. She was told it was because she “had a full-time job at home with her children.” Her company made this determination without consulting her to find out what she actually wanted. She won her case, too.” (Goldstien).

Still with all of this considered and the fact that it is indeed illegal to discriminate in such a manner, why is it still a serious ongoing issue? Well I cannot say that I have the answer to this problem. But we can certainly understand how it has been allowed to fester and linger as it has. This issue is complex. It is not only an issue of sexism in the workplace but also on the issues that exist in workplace culture and attitude. Goldstien best articulates the major reasons for this issue’s longevity as follows.

“There’s widespread evidence that bias against mothers is a systemic problem beyond a few bad bosses. Research regularly shows that mothers are routinely viewed as less competent and committed to their jobs, despite evidence to the contrary. A study published in the American Journal of Sociology has found that in instances when job candidates were equal in every way except for a subtle indication that the candidate was a parent, being a mother reduced the chance that a candidate would be offered the job by 37 percentage points.

The recommended salary for mothers who were offered the job was $11,000 less than for childless female candidates. (Researchers have found that this hiring and pay bias doesn’t affect fathers at all. In fact, fathers tend to make more money than their childless male counterparts.)” (Goldstien).

This article puts forth a lot of ideas and information and not all of them have defined solutions or answers. But such is reality even if a legal action or solution is put forward to stop and issue, it most often remains in lesser form. Actions such as this are a fantastic start but just be pursued further. To propagate real change behaviors that perpetuate and enforce the issue and its implantation must also be dismantled. As real inclusion can only take hold when one’s mind is open and willing to change, and not be held back by past ideals and structures that put others underfoot. We as a collective must realize one thing, a woman and her worth is not defined by her kids or her family. Nor is her potential for success and effectiveness held back by these factors.  Once these things become the norm then we can have a more inclusive environment in both our work and society.

Sources:

Goldstein, K. (2018, May 16). The Open Secret of Anti-Mom Bias at Work. Retrieved October 05, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/opinion/workplace-discrimination-mothers.html

Response to Yoshino Excerpts

By: Jackson Schuyler

The excerpts that I read were extremely informative and precise in nature. The style that he wrote this in was extremely descriptive, but at times wordy but was able to convey its purpose through its raw emotional weight and content. With him including deep personal examples and or experiences that made the piece more comprehensible and relatable. As one can easily understand and empathize with his work and its contents. Truly understanding the struggles and turmoil these issues inflict on their victims. Once I finished reading this piece, I was left with one major thing in my mind. Covering and its effects. These excerpts have set me down a path of connection and realization of how much I have had my life impacted and affected by covering. I have a deep personal experience with covering and its effects with what it can do to someone. So, I cannot think of a better concept to write about for the upcoming paper. I can produce a work that is like Yoshino’s where it draws from personal experience and hardship. Using them to paint a solid and relatable view of an issue and its cost it can have on individuals.