Jezebel published a piece last week criticizing The Hollywood Reporter's choice to award Ronan farrow at their annual women in entertainment gala in December. Link here: Ronan Farrow to Be Honored at the Women in Entertainment Gala The Hollywood Reporter (THR) wants to give Farrow their equity in entertainment award which recognizes someone who has worked against gender based discrimination and for greater inclusion of women and people of color.
Now yes, THR should also give the award to Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey who shared the Pulitzer with Farror—for sure. I definitely agree with that. But Jezebel bases their argument not on that oversight, but rather on the fact that Ronan is not a woman or a person of color and the award should go to someone who is not white and not male.
As an observer (and I make no claims to be an unbiased one) I don’t know what to make of this. But it certainly doesn’t sit right with me. Farrow's work brought down a monster (Harvey Weinstein) who was preying on women everywhere. Going after Weinstein opened the floodgates for #MeToo and #TimesUp. Yes, Farrow has already gotten accolades and yes, I support spreading awards out to highlight the work of women and poc who have been historically ignored … and yes, this effort probably means less attention for white males in general (including me) … which I can live with.
But . . . arguing as, Jezebel does, that Farrow doesn't deserve recognition explicitly because he is a white male is problematic and runs the risk of undermining the progressive ideals we’re strive to live up to. Yes, denying Farrow the award is a bit of a (satisfying) reversal. For once, a white male is facing a type of discrimination women and poc have been experiencing for centuries.
Finally! Take that patriarchy! How do you like a taste of you own medicine for once? Aha! Zing!
But this sanctimony, I fear, represents more of a sugar-rush of schadenfreude than proper justice. Because replacing once injustice with another, is not a remedy to discrimination. It’s just perpetuating it.
I’m not arguing against overcorrection. We need overcorrection at this point in history. Things have been imbalanced in the direction of injustice way too long. But if we’re going to say “no” to awarding Farrow, let’s make sure we represent a sound argument for it. It helps our cause if that decision is based on principles of equity and redistributive justice. Otherwise, we open the door to accusations of pettiness or (gasp) “reverse discrimination.”[1]
My thinking on this has been influenced by Ibram X. Kendi’s excellent book How to be an Anti Racist, (Short review: It’s amazing. Read it). Kendi uses research and personal anecdotes to explore many different types of racist attitudes, even among people of color (!) That is not really an issue for me to speak to, as Kendi (and James Baldwin before him in his criticism of The Nation of Islam) have already done that far better than I can. Bottom line: both authors stress that replacing one racial hierarchy with another, even if an inverted version of the first, is still morally flawed. It undermines your cause and only serves to promote injustice rather than justice.
Jezebel’s approach anchored solely in identity politics and leaning so hard on labels is exactly what makes (fragile) white folks in the conservative media bubble scream “Look see, we're being discriminated against,” and “It’s reverse racism! White people are so oppressed!”
<Eye Roll>
We don’t need to fan the flames of that fire. It helps no one.
I am trying to tread carefully here. I’m not against Jezebel’s suggestion. It has merit. It’s their argument I am critiquing. But (taken to an absurd extreme) my position might be misconstrued as a case against affirmative action. Let me be clear: it’s not.
I’m arguing for consistency, which ultimately lends credibility to the (persuasive) case that Farrow doesn’t need recognition and the award may serve the cause, further the career of someone else in a more profound way.
My take on affirmative action is that it is intended in a spirit of affirming the discriminatory challenges a person has faced in their past. It is a corrective to give folks who have faced structural barriers opportunity to improve their future, the same opportunity people of privilege have had. Jezebel’s argument seems to be based on a more punitive spirit. That is where we open the door to being called petty at best, discriminatory at worst.[2] Instead of lifting someone else up, we’re knocking someone down. It brings to mind one of my favorite illustrations on equity vs. equality and how to balance the assets some already have the deficiencies of others.
But wait, there’s more. The story has additional twists!
Farrow is white. He is male. He is also gay. Therefore, an argument exists that Farrow DOESN'T conform to the straight white male patriarchy. So, go ahead, give him the award. Gay Pride! Love is Love! Whoohoo!
Take that heteronormative white patriarchy! Zing!
But wait there’s even more.
Some activists of color and lesbian women argue that none of that "matters" because Farrow is white. He still coasts on white male privilege.[3]
So, no-way don’t give him the award, you sexist, racist pig.
If this is starting to feel a bit like “keeping score” in an oppression contest you’d be forgiven.
“Sorry, my transgender Afro Latina one ups your lesbian friend because even though she is gay, your lesbian friend is white and cis-gendered and so has a lower oppression score.”
This is when I wonder if there is a point when the continual splitting off and sub dividing into more and more granular categories of identity politics (while highlighting the unique experiences of historically marginalized groups—valuable right?!) begins to have diminishing returns.
When does it flip from recognition to competition, pitting us against one another? Does this oppression hierarchy/scorecard sacrifice solidarity and obscure all we have in common? When does a spirit of proper acknowledgment turn into decisive tribalism … we vs. them, you vs. me? I’m less worried about being accused of “reverse discrimination” than I am of failing to see the humanity and authentic pain of others.
As a straight white male, I'm handicapped by my own biases and privileges here and so I’m curious for the perspective of others.
And to an extent I feel sympathy for my gay male friends—the white ones, yeah them.
I’ve heard my gay friends describe the pain, fear, and anxiety of growing up perceived as straight by their families. They struggled through years of adolescence and sexual awakening paired with a growing recognition that their orientation was different—not the default. This was followed by the trauma of having to confront their families (some accepting some not) and explain to parents and siblings that their perceptions were fundamentally flawed. As a cis-gendered straight guy, I’ve enjoyed the privilege of never having to “correct” my family’s sense of my core identity—gender, sexual orientation or otherwise. Their defaults aligned with my inner reality.
That made things easier for me.
But that is a privilege fundamentally different than the experience of my gay friends–even the white male ones. I don’t know if this struggle of theirs should be dismissed or diminished, even if the person who went through it was a white male. Love is love and pain is pain.
Let’s pause to consider, that coming out as gay is the number one reason teens are kicked out of the home and left homeless (white kids, kids of color, whatever). The statistics for these teens the moment they hit the streets are harrowing. Close to half will be solicited for transactional sex (for food, shelter, money) within 36 hours of being kicked out of the home. Many are at high risk of drug use and addiction—not from recreational use have you—but rather using substances to escape the emotional trauma of abandonment, rejection, and abuse (not to mention the use of amphetamines just to remain vigilant and awake while trying to pass a night unsheltered on city streets). Given all that, I’d probably use too.
So does your lesbian, southeast Asian, cis-gendered friend still trump my gay white cis gendered male friend?
When does it matter? When doesn’t it?
Bottom line, I don’t know.
This I do know: I don’t think Farrow (alone) should get the award or maybe at all. If he gets it, he should definitely share it with Kantor and Twohey. I think the argument against awarding Farrow should be grounded in principles of redistributive justice and recognition—not in a spirit of corrective punishment or revenge. I want to live and walk in a spirit of recognizing everyone’s differences and their traumas, their resilience, their unique stories … but not at the expense of seeing the humanness that links us all together.
Like I said above, can we lift others up without knocking others down?
________________________________________________
[1] I’m still not even sure this is a thing, but some people really do claim it.
[2] For the record, I support Affirmative Action and the principles behind it. I also support reparations for slavery and have mentioned before that Bryan Stephenson, author of Just Mercy and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative has offered some of the best (and realistic) forms of reparation I’ve heard to date.
[3] I've heard the same criticism of Pete Buttigieg diminishing the significance of his candidacy because he is a white male. This is just sad.