Posts

By: Haylie Blankenship, Max Bruggeman, and Samar Suleiman 

Max Bruggeman: All right.

Max Bruggeman: Hello listeners, my name is Max Bruggeman and I’m here with Samar and Haylie and today on “Yo is this is racist, homophobic, ect, we’re gonna be talking about Asian hate and history of Asian hate and we can also touch on the homophobic things have been going on. In particular we’re gonna be talking about gay marriage and the right for people who are getting a gay marriage to enter a private business and be served. And um so without further ado let’s get started with the history of Asian hate. Does anyone want to get started? 

Haylie Blankenship: So, I know this was kind of yours and Samar’s idea um whenever we were kind of working on getting things together you kind of brought up the violence, shooting some history stuff. What is some history on the Asian hate and racism in there?

Max Bruggeman: Yes, so I’m actually a history major so i’ve learned a lot about the systemic racism going on with Asian Americans, and it goes way back to when Chinese immigrants began emigrating to the United States; back when we were actually recruiting Asian Americans to help build the transcontinental railroad and people out West would hire these Asian immigrants for cheap labor. And um but eventually there was only about like what less than 1% of the California population was Asian Americans. But there was this kind of like fear that oh my gosh Asians are coming to the country at an alarming rate, we need to block these Asians from coming to the country. So in 1882 Congress actually passed the Chinese exclusion act, and this was the first immigration restriction policy that we’ve ever had in our country.

 And this just shows that our willingness to discriminate against something that we do not understand, like this just came from straight fear there was never. As we know, today there was never really a chance of China coming to take over the west coast, but this was just a fear of people at the time, and also this continued with World War two, this has more to do with Japanese Americans. I’m sure we’ve all heard about the internment camps in California after the bombing of Pearl harbor. This is another example of how just out of straight fear like we are willing to discriminate against people who just look different from us, even though they may have lived in the United States, their whole entire lives.

And now, today, like we see even with Donald Trump calling the coronavirus the “China virus”, now that like just fear, how the president can stoke fear into people and pushing people into making discriminatory acts.

Haylie Blankenship: Yeah, most definitely. 

Samar Suleiman: Yeah, I mean I could also pick up on that. With current events like with COVID-19 cases still being at an all time high a lot of Asian Americans have experienced the highest rate of hate related crimes. I mean, In Portland, Oregon alone,  within the last week of January at- least 13 businesses had rocks thrown at their windows. Older people are targeted for just walking down the street, just because they’re Asians. So much hate has been directed towards Asian Americans, since the start of the pandemic and, as you mentioned Max,  former President Donald Trump he expressed a lot of racism towards Asian Americans, since the start of the pandemic. He referred to the virus as the “Wu-Tang” virus and obviously a lot of his supporters gained strength because they have a higher ranking member of the government, publicly saying this, and so they feel as if they had the strength to come out and attack people just because of their race. And, like, I guess, a lot of you guys have also heard. A couple of weeks ago, another tragic and horrific shooting occurred in Atlanta.  Eight innocent lives were lost due to this hatred. The suspect was Robert Long, he was charged with eight counts of murder and he targeted three suburban spas, in which he was a customer at two. Just the fact that some of the police officers were defending his act of terror and stating that “he had a bad day.” Like there’s no excuse for what he did, he clearly targeted those spa’s because the majority of people that worked there were Asian.

Haylie Blankenship: That’s insane.

Samar Suleiman: I know, like, I mean having a bad day isn’t an excuse to take out your anger on someone I guess you don’t particularly like.

Haylie Blankenship: I know. One of my biggest issues with racism is the fact that it’s the United States it’s not like obviously we’re called America, but who specifically is American, if not all.

Samar Suleiman: I know, right. 

Max Bruggeman: This kind of reminded me of like when I first wrote my injustice sample It reminded me of de Beavior “Second Sex” because, like she mentioned that no group ever sets itself up as the one without at once setting up the other against itself so like this kind of reminded me of like especially an 1882 white people in California just wanted to be the dominant group out West basically. And so you’re not going to make yourself the dominant group in the United States without pitting yourself against the others, and the others in this case is Asian Americans. I found that very interesting.

Samar Suleiman: Right, yeah, and like going off of what Max said, like relating it I guess to class content, I think of Simon de Beauvoir’s concept of the “One” versus the “Other”. And  in this case, Asian Americans are being outcast for being the “Other” based solely on their ethnicity. No one should have to feel a sense of exclusion from their society, just because they’re different.

Haylie Blankenship: Especially, which I don’t remember which module it was, but when they talked about the Asian community and whenever they come over like they bring Chinatown and they put it into play, but then, some of them feel forced to change, according to our society.

And I don’t feel like that’s fair to them, because they can put their own culture into ours and it’s not going to ruin anything it’s just going to, I would say change for the better.

Max Bruggeman: I completely agree it’s interesting because you think like that these types of things are getting better with time, like before coronavirus I know personally. I never really thought of Asian Americans in America being necessarily discriminated against, like violently, but like this is definitely opened my eyes, like look how just-just simple rhetoric and like misunderstanding and ignorance can just lead to such hatred.

Haylie Blankenship: Which the ignorant part we can kind of put an add on the like gay wedding cake. And since homophobia is a huge issue. Um. So I don’t remember what year it was, I actually did this systemic injustice. So a few years back, there was this bakery and they refused to make a wedding cake for this two male couple that we’re going to get married. They basically said no we’re not gonna make you a wedding cake, but you can buy anything else in the bakery.

 I can’t tell you how much that boiled my blood, my skin, because that’s just that’s such ignorance to me not being able to just accept them. They’re just people like us. So if a male and female can go and get a wedding cake, but like two females or two males or like that’s just injustice to the LGBTQ community.

Max Bruggeman: Yeah I completely agree with you, I just want to ask like where do you think that this? I know we just talked about Asian hate and that we think that it comes from mainly comes from ignorance and rhetoric, where do you think that the homophobia conflict comes from? You think it comes from a religion? Or are you thinking it also comes from ignorance or something else? 

Haylie Blankenship:  So for this, he claimed it was on his religion that’s what was his claim on it, and why, because there’s a whole lawsuit on it, and he said that was based on his religion, but there are so many different like it can be religion, it could just be stuck on tradition. Um.

The kind of ignorance of not being able to accept, being closed minded, there’s a multitude of reasons. But I don’t know. Samar what’s your stance on it?

Samar Suleiman: I mean, I guess, I think it’s just honestly ignorance, like, in this day and age, like there is going to be different people than who you are, and there’s going to be different beliefs than what you believe. At the end of the day, I guess how you pointed out. If a man and a woman can go up and get a wedding cake why can’t, I don’t know, a woman and a woman- or whoever- get like a cake for their wedding day? It’s their special day they also deserve to be happy, they also deserve to get, I guess, the sense of belonging in their community, and no one should have to be discriminated against, whether it be race, gender, ethnicity or whatever. Like you know what i’m saying?

Haylie Blankenship: Yeah, I agree with that. 

Max Bruggeman: Also it has become so political as well. My I was, I was recently hanging out with my uncle, my great uncle actually, and one of his uh my cousin, so his grandson, is gay but he’s a republican and I know he talked to me about how it’s like hard for him to like stand for or like support politicians that that are against like gay marriage, but he also has a gay grandson and it’s just I don’t know I don’t like how it has become a political issue it’s more of a human rights issue like, I don’t understand why we can’t just put this to the side, this can be something that we agree on, this doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. It’s easier to say that than actually make that happen. I feel as if there is other things that like political leaders can debate on other things other than just whether or not gay people should have rights, you know?

Haylie Blankenship: Right. I know we’re running low on time, but I agree with that, like a big issue is like they’re trying to put the LGBTQ community with the politics part of it with like they’re trying to narrow it down to a political thing of Democrats versus Republicans and that’s just not fair to me. Like religion and stuff, that kind of it’s the United States of America. And I don’t even know where I left off my bad. But like LGBTQ community isn’t part of politics in any form, or fashion.

Max Bruggeman: I can just touch on that. It’s also very regional. I know that we’ve discussed this before we hopped on but what if you come from like a rural town where like, If you’re not exposed to people who are gay then like I can see how it’d be harder to understand that, like the gay couples like want to be together, but like when you move to a city like Columbus or i’ve also always been from the city, so I was also previously from Cincinnati. But like when you’re not around it, I feel like it’s just it’s hard to understand how like people could discriminate against people who, who are gay.

Haylie Blankenship: I don’t know if y’all know where it is but i’m from Meigs County. It’s kind of like a small village; it’s a county but where I’m from Pomeroy it’s a village and it’s just more I guess the smaller Community you have it kind of feels like it’s more narrow minded. It doesn’t feel like you can be as accepted if you’re not the same as everyone else. But that was my kind of growing up life.

Max Bruggeman: Samar, you want to add anything?

Samar Suleiman: I don’t really have anything to add right now.

Max Bruggeman: Oh, okay, well, I think we can wrap it up, then, if no one says anything else to add.

Haylie Blankenship: Yeah that sounds great um I think we had a nice chat today about all the injustices with the Asian racism, and homophobia with the wedding cake.

Max Bruggeman: Those are great examples, great examples, but obviously in this class there are so many different forms of systemic injustices that have been rooted within history.

Even in 2021, as even though we’re making changes to overcome those, we still have to make note of these injustices, so we can correct them in the future.

Samar Suleiman: Yeah.

Max Bruggeman: Awesome, well, i’ll see you guys later, thank you.

Samar Suleiman: Thank you.

“No, I mean where are you really from?”

This is a line that makes me cringe in discomfort every time someone says it, which is far too often. Why? It is such a seemingly innocent question; it suggests that the person asking it is interested in the heritage and culture of the person being asked. However, it is important to note that the phrasing of this question implies that the person being asked has already given an answer: Pennsylvania, California, Indiana, or some other unmemorable place in the United States. The person asking must have used stereotypes, ethnicity, race, etc. to decide that the answer given is unsatisfactory.

So what, right? Why should it matter that someone used context clues to assume that another person’s family recently migrated to America? For one, it implies an “American race”. More specifically, it implies that Americans should be white. It implies that the “correct” American is a distant descendant of a western European. This is problematic on two accounts: it disregards the fact that white Americans are themselves migrants (or descendants of migrants), and it also perpetuates Native American erasure. It is also important to take a closer look at the racial tension and xenophobia that is active in America and, therefore, the way that racial profiling in this way is loaded.

We, as a country, have just emerged from the presidency of Donald Trump. Regardless, of anyone’s opinion of him, he is very clearly one of the most internationally xenophobic presidents of modern America. He tweeted constantly about the “criminals” crossing the US-Mexico border. He incited fear that Americans will lose their jobs to these migrants. He developed a large part of his campaign on “building a wall” to protect Americans from illegal immigrants. While I wish that this sentiment could fall into the idea of a “single story”, that Trump was the only person who felt this way, he gained a large following based on this ideology and, thus, this mindset of xenophobia resonated with many Americans.

Many Americans also harbor an international xenophobia towards middle easterners. I, personally, grew up hearing a lot of hate directed towards middle easterners. I vividly remember in third grade, after Osama Bin Laden was killed, that my teacher held a celebration. She read the newspapers out loud, and let students sing songs about his death. While Bin Laden was an awful man, and his actions were irredeemable, hatred towards him quickly turned into hatred towards middle easterners in general. People around me had a difficult time separating fundamentalist violence from the general Islamic population, and I hear cries to ban the religion and prohibit immigration from Islamic countries. Once I was talking to a man and he referred to Muslims as “dirty people”. He described them as “barely human”. It was then, when I was in eighth grade, that I realized just how alive xenophobia is in America. I also would like to note that this man aspired to become a cop, someone responsible for protecting the public who hated a group of Americans based solely on their religion.

A third group of people who have suffered an increase in hate crimes recently are Asian Americans. Former president Trump referred to coronavirus as the “Chinese disease”, and there has been an increase in violence targeted towards Asian Americans. This increase in violence reflects the growing sense of xenophobia in America, as well as an increase in racial tension.

But all of this may seem off topic from my original claim: what does any of this have to do with an innocently asked question? When someone introduces themselves as an American, claims that they are from Ohio, or Pennsylvania or wherever, they have defined their identity. If they wish to share information about their ethnicity or race then they will do so, separately, when they feel it is appropriate or relevant. The other person should never demand that some other, more “satisfactory” answer be given, as this is a form of “othering” that brings negative attention to the difference between the two individuals.

By negative attention, I am referring to the way that a statement like this uses stereotypes, race, and ethnicity to highlight an assumption that the other person must not be American. Furthermore, as has been demonstrated, there is a certain xenophobic weight carried within the statement as there is a large hateful and internationally xenophobic movement in America. By bringing attention to someone’s race, religion, ethnicity, etc. without them initiating the conversation and wanting to talk about it can make a person very uncomfortable, especially given the current negative ideology that many Americans currently hold regarding migrants.

Next I think that it is important to analyze the irony in the statement, specifically in the way that it is primarily asked to people of color. White people did not inhabit the Americas until the 1400s, and it took much longer for there to be a significant white population in the United States. So, who was here before the white man? Native Americans. I find it unnerving how the white population moved in and claimed the continent as their own. “Manifest Destiny” and “Ancient Right to the Land” are explicitly racist ideas that describe the white population as divinely enhanced, with an unspoken claim to what is now the United States.

The way that this population claimed their “Ancient Right” is somehow even more disturbing than the mindset itself. The Native Americans that were not killed by the disease and infection that was imported from Europe were forced from their territory by this new population. The most deadly and devastating migration of anyone into the United States thus far was the original wave of white elitists who ravaged the Natives and took the land for their own. This original migration was one of terror, disease, and brutality, yet these original migrants are implicitly still held to some high esteem.

American history fails to improve after this original sin; the American South began a forced migration of Africans and turned them into slaved. As is commonly understood in the United States, these slaves were brutally mistreated, and the effects of slavery continue to be felt. After the abolishment of slavery, which was obtained at the cost of a bloody civil war, the United States remained legally segregated until the mid-twentieth century. However, even though it is no longer legal, the scaffolding of this segregation remains in place today. Take Columbus public schooling for instance, Columbus City Schools is the only predominantly black school district in the area, and it is grossly overpopulated and underfunded in comparison to the white, suburban school districts mere blocks away. So why are black Americans, Americans who have suffered endlessly at the hand of the United States, not considered the image of an American?

All of this lays the backdrop for why I find the question, “Where are you really from” so distasteful. It implies some image of a native-born American, which is very ironically a white person. This question implicitly reinforces this idea, and exalts the single most destructive group of migrants, the white population, as the “natural” American. Furthermore, it neglects the to acknowledge that if anyone should be tagged with the title of “natural” American, it should be the Native American who was dismissed as a voiceless subaltern of sorts. Or, perhaps, the title should be given the black American population, who have faced countless challenges posed by the white American population, and still struggle to achieve some form of equality.

In addition, asking the question in this way, expectantly demanding some “satisfying” answer, contributes to the “othering” currently afflicting migrants in this country. This question takes the power away from the individual to define themselves in whatever way they see appropriate. It implies that the individual could not possible be American, there must be something in their identity that differentiates them from the white population. I find it important to note here that in saying this it is not my intention to take the power away from an individual’s culture and identity, in fact my intention is the opposite. The power of one’s identity should be reliant only on themselves. If they wish to identify themselves as American, that identity should not be questioned. If they wish to identify themselves in some other way, that should be equally respected. The important idea here is that the individual retains power over their own identity, and that the image of a “true” American should not be though of as exclusively white. The United States has a diverse history, some of it incredibly shameful and disturbing. The disturbing parts should be acknowledged and amended, and the beautiful parts should be celebrated.

I have once heard of America as being the melting pot. In many ways, this metaphor is problematic as it implies that migration to America requires the ‘shedding’ of one’s other identities. Perhaps a better metaphor is like the sand, countless individuals with their own story and identity that make up the image of America. Do not be the person asking, “where are you really from?” Do not be the person implying that white Americans are true Americans. Fully respect that one’s identity is determined solely by themselves.

Link: https://youtu.be/-IVATsxtkgU

By: Alexa Forte and Divya Patibandla

Alexa Forte: Hi, my name is Alexa. I’m a sophomore from New Jersey. I’m studying accounting, and I’m minoingr in Spanish for business and fashion and retail studies. One of the reasons I took this class is because I come from a very white and privileged hometown, and I believe that is important to educate yourself and learn about cultures and systemic injustice throughout our world today.

Divya Patibandla: I am Divya Patibandla. I’m a biochemistry major and I have a minor in Spanish as well. The main reason I took this class is to kind of like further like my ideas and I just wanted to like, learn more about I don’t know like, how we relate these issues in our modern society and how it applies to everyone, not just like certain groups of people. I grew up in a, I grew up in a predominantly like white area, like my high school was 2000 people but there was only a certain amount of people of color, you could literally count them on your hands so I definitely know what it feels to be like alienated in our society and stuff.

Alexa Forte: Personally for me, I am Jewish, although that is not super cultural and I’m not a huge alienation from the rest of society I dealt with a lot of personal discrimination within my hometown where people would coin names and stereotypes for me and did not originally think it was offensive but I did in fact take a lot of offense to these names. And so that is the reason that this course hits kind of close to home for me

Divya Patibandla: For my personal experience, both my parents are immigrants who came from India when they were about five years old. Both of my grandparents like live with me or in the area so they’ve definitely told me a lot about my culture from a young age. So, I definitely understand what it’s like to be an Asian-American growing up in our society. But although I can never fully understand what it means to be like a Black person or a Latino in our society, like I can relate to some degree and, this is why I think it’s really important that we take the time to educate ourselves over topics like these, and how they relate to systemic injustice.

Alexa Forte: So, Divya, you said that you had a great Diary of Systemic Showcase that you found in our society today and if you just want to talk a little bit about that that would be awesome.

Divya Patibandla: Right, yeah, one of the most interesting things I came across when I was working on my Diary of Systemic Injustices Showcase was basically I focused on Megan Markle’s mistreatment within, by, like at the hands of the British institution and palace officials.

One thing that I found was super shocking was, while, during her pregnancy, at one point she was experiencing extremely like suicidal thoughts; she was like suffering with mental illness, and she recognized this—was strong enough to recognize this—and asked for help. She told Prince Harry and he was like yeah I think you should like try to find some help, I think this is like an issue that needs to be dealt with. And, so she went to palace officials because there’s, when she was speaking about this in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, she kind of uncovered how, like the process you need to go through in order to do anything in the palace. So she went to the institution, said she was suffering and experiencing suicidal thoughts and asked for help.

And they actually denied her help because, and actually the institution did not give a reason. So, Alexa, how do you, like, what are your initial thoughts?

Alexa Forte: Honestly, I didn’t even know about the situation until we had discuss it previously and I believe that it is wrong to dismiss anybody’s mental health issues because mental health is such an important factor I think especially, in society, in society today given COVID and being a college student we’ve probably experienced our own mental health problems and it is so easy for college students to be able to reach out and get that help and for royalty not even to be able to shed light on any of her mental health problems and to be turned away from the institution, I think that’s very discriminating in a way, against her mental health, and everybody should be able to be taken care of and be able to reach their resources that they need it so.

Divya Patibandla: Yeah, I definitely agree and something that I learned after watching the full interview with Oprah Winfrey, Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan Markle, was that after she had gone to the institution and was denied help the first time, she actually went to the human resources department after and said, hey, basically was like hey, I’m still struggling and the institution denied me help, so I’m looking to you guys because I’m really struggling right now. And they basically told her, because you’re not a paid employee of the Institution we can’t provide you with any care or any help. I think to her, you could, when she was speaking about this, you could see the hurt in her face and you can see how she was barely holding it together but she was trying to for the sake of the interview and to share her story and share her message. So I think that’s, that’s really powerful in and of itself 

Alexa Forte: That also makes me raise the question then, because obviously she’s not the only royal woman within the family, how maybe her experience has been different than Kate’s and if there was any bias or structural injustice that she faced because she is not white like Kate is and she comes from a different cultural background.

Divya Patibandla: I definitely agree after reading like various articles from the New York Time, New York Times, and stuff, I can say with confidence that she was absolutely, treated, mistreated, and when compared to Kate Middleton, her sister in law, she absolutely was portrayed differently by the media and the institution did not take the steps to portray her in a different light. For instance like anytime anything bad or like in a negative light would come out about Duchess Kate Middleton, the Institution would not hesitate to make a statement, and like clarify exactly what happened to defend her. However, like throughout Duchess Meghan Markle’s experiences with the Institution, time and time again, they showed that they would not defend her. And, they actually said at some point in the interview, Meghan was like, she asked the Institution, hey, would I be allowed to go have lunch with a couple of my friends. I have not left the palace and like, I’ve left the palace twice in four months, I just, I need to be around people like who care about me and they said they actually denied her that privilege. They called it a privilege, first of all, and they denied her that, because they felt that the media coverage was just way too much, she was being exposed to much. And she was failing to understand how she was being exposed if she was barely leaving the house. And at this point, she just recognized that the palace officials and the Institution itself, were never going to truly defend her like they would for Duchess Kate Middleton or any other royal family member. 

Alexa Forte: And I think that title Duchess shows that essentially like the media often catches people with a title of that power, you know like, it’s kind of like a celebrity back at home, the media is often covering everybody with the titles of singers, pop stars stuff like that and I think in England, their equivalent is Duchess, and for Kate to be having the media covering her life and stuff and then for them to deny a simple like trip to Duchess Meghan is just ridiculous, unfair, unjust, and just so many other issues behind it that I think we can shed light on with a couple of our examples that we found online with images to kind of get further into it.

Divya Patibandla: Right, yeah so just for a comparison with how Kate and Meghan were mistreated, these are some newspaper articles actually shown side by side, discussing this same concept but how you can see how Kate is being portrayed in a much more positive light compared to Duchess Meghan Markle, who is clearly being treated in a more negative light. So for example this first one is talking about how they both have been cradling their baby bumps.

Princess Kate, or I’m sorry, excuse me Duchess Kate her article says, “not too long to go,  pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump, while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave, and William confirms she is due at any minute now.”  And while Meghan Markle is seen doing the same exact thing, cradling her baby bump, the article title reads, “Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump, experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: is it pride, vanity, acting, or a new age bonding technique?” Another newspaper article that was shown from the same source, but written at different times read that Duchess Kate’s article said, “Kate’s morning sickness cure? Prince William gifted an avocado for pregnant Duchess.” Meghan Markle’s article read, “Meghan Markle’s beloved avocado, avocado, link to human rights abuse and drought, millennial shame. So I think just seeing those titles and seeing the comparison and the differences in how the, the Institution, allows the Duchesses is to be portrayed so differently really sheds light,on how, on the mistreatment of Meghan Markle because she is a person of color. I think, yeah, it’s definitely something that needs to be like, called to attention and stuff in our society.

Alexa Forte: And I think it’s interesting that we can also compare this back to the stuff that we’ve learned in class. I know that we might have talked about before a little bit about One versus the Other and the subaltern. In my experience with reading this, I linked a lot of this to those acts similar of identifying someone as a subaltern because it seems as, in this situation, that Duchess Meghan is being colonized by a larger power. And that power that is maybe colonizing her and suppressing her and putting all of these discriminatory actions upon her tends to be like the royal family, the Institution, the people denying her of privileges. And essentially just all of this negative light that is being shone on her is happening from not only the institution, but the people that live in and populate England and of itself that followed the royal family. So I definitely saw that similarity with Spivack’s subaltern theory in this situation.

Divya Patibandla: Yeah. I definitely, I related this more to deBeauvoir’s theory of “the One” and “the Other.” In this sense, I saw the Institution, and the like palace officials as “the One,” and they singled out Meghan Markle as “the Other.”I saw this time and time again with how they kind of, they mistreated her, they singled her out compared to other family members of the royal family. Just in the little everyday things when she was discussing it in her interview, I think it was really obvious that she was seen as different in their eyes.

Alexa Forte: Agreed. And I think in the future, and dealing with all this information and us learning it as people in the United States as college students, and maybe such like a significant way. I feel like it’s important that as the audience that’s reading this, that we then do our best to educate ourselves and have discussions like these, so that maybe others can learn from this experience that what is happening to Duchess Meghan is not okay, it is not acceptable. She has a right and deserves to be listened to, and heard too, and her mental health problems need to be addressed. And she should be in the same positive light that her sister-in-law is.

Divya Patibandla: Yes, and I totally agree with that and I also just want to draw on the fact that one of the main reasons that Duchess Meghan Markle and Prince Harry decided to dissociate from the royal family was because prior to the birth of their son Archie, the Institution actually raised questions about how dark Archie’s skin would be, and what that would mean for the royal family. And they brought up these questions at least two times with Prince Harry who then relayed the message to Meghan, who was just extremely hurt, and shameful that this, it was shameful that this even happened, but when Meghan shared this information I was honestly stunned. And obviously like being someone of, like, darker, of a darker skin complexion like this just raised so many questions in me because I was just so concerned for like our future and if this is like still happening in today’s society have we really come that far from, like, all of the issues we had and like with the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s? And that was just really appalling for me. 

Alexa Forte: And it’s crazy to even just think about like somebody marrying the love of their life, and somebody else is questioning why their marriage, their future, their family, and it’s not every single day that you see every single marriage being put into question. Right, like in the past, obviously we know certain cultures, religions, it tends to be, it tended to be, same religion, same culture, same color. Obviously, that is not the case in modern day anymore, which is amazing I’m happy that we’re having this world that’s full of culture that we are becoming the melting pot that the United States says we are, and that across the world. Right? It’s just, it’s something, it’s new and exciting and everybody should be educated in the same sense, but it’s just crazy to think that somebody could question, somebody else’s life when they have no say when it’s not their experience and why do they get to comment on somebody else’s happiness?

Divya Patibandla: I totally agree. Yeah, this is a question that Oprah definitely raised, she was  like what gives, what gives the British Institution this authority to question, to first of all question on the skin complexion of your future son? And asking what that would mean for the royal family? Like, how could you insinuate that having a darker skin complexion would mean anything different? And actually what I found interesting was that prior to Archie’s birth they actually changed, a title, um I believe it was the one of the fifth titles or something, but they actually changed the title so that Archie, when he was born, he wouldn’t actually be given, given a title like previous generations. So they, the Institution, ensured that he would not be given a title, nor financial stability. And just like, I don’t know, hearing those words out loud.

Alexa Forte: He hasn’t even lived his life yet, and they’ve already been making decisions for him. 

Divya Patibandla: Exactly, yeah

Alexa Forte: Based on his skin color.

Divya Patibandla Mm hmm. It’s just, it was just appalling to hear and seeing this at such a national, international, like level, it was just very very concerning. Especially at the hands of an institution with so much power, I think that’s something that we all just need to recognize. And  obviously like systemic injustices occur every single day, whether it be like incarceration, like I can’t even, there are so many countless examples, but the fact that this is happening at a much larger level than any of us could have ever imagined is just still very concerning and something that needs to be talked about. 

Alexa Forte: I agree, and that’s why I really appreciate this class and being able to have these conversations, and being able to meet with you and talk about it as well. Because it needs to be addressed. 

Divya Patibandla: Absolutely.

Alexa Forte: And we need to be educated. Thank you for listening!

Divya Patibandla: Thank you for listening and thank you for your time!

As a college student living on my own and paying for a lot of my own expenses, I’ve started to really take notice of the cost of all of my necessary items. It was a little shocking to realize how expensive little things such as razors, deodorant, and other necessary hygiene items cost. I began to hear in the media about something called “pink tax” on items like razors and other feminine products. After more research, I found that pink tax not only applies to razors and shaving cream, but the prices of numerous women’s products and services are priced higher than men’s. This has issued a debate as to whether or not this so-called pink tax is a form of gender discrimination against women. In this column, both sides of the argument will be analyzed to demonstrate how the pink tax truly is facilitating gender discrimination towards women.       

Although the term “pink tax” has been coined recently, price differences in products and services between men and women have been around for years. Let’s dive into the history of gender discrimination in pricing. According to Rocket HQ, “Before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010 and prohibited the practice, health insurers routinely charged women higher monthly premiums than men. The rationale for charging women more for health insurance was that women have more health – specifically, reproductive – costs than men” (The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It, 1). This rationale is still present today as to why many women’s products and services are more expensive than men’s. Some claim that women’s haircuts are more expensive than men’s because cutting women’s hair is a more complicated process. However, this logic is flawed when you look at other situations such as the car industry. The car industry has used manipulation tactics on women for years to get more money out of them. According to a study, “In 1991,YaleLaw professor Ian Ayres found that car dealerships were systematically offering better prices on identical cars to white men than they were for black or women shoppers” (The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It, 1). This doesn’t stop at the selling of cars; women are often charged more for car repairs as well. The Affordable Care Act and other legislation have been put into place to prevent racial discrimination in health care and other settings, but this has still not been achieved at the product level. That is why people are still fighting against the pink tax and demanding that there be changes made to ensure that goods are priced equally for men and women. Although some historical gender discrimination has been righted by legislation, the debate is whether or not the current pink tax on products is still discriminating against women or if it is just normal economics.

“Lawmakers have found it more difficult to regulate the pricing of goods, as evidenced by the 2016 legislative attempt in California to update its law to include prohibition of gender-based discrimination on goods. The bill was ultimately withdrawn following criticism that it could open a door for excessive litigation. A similar bill is currently moving through the New York State Assembly” (The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It, 1).

There are copious examples of evidence that demonstrate the higher prices of women’s items. Pink tax is seen the most in personal care items such as razors, deodorant, medicine, and even in items like clothes and children’s toys. According to Dora Mekouar, “The price differences suggest women pay a yearly “gender tax” of about $1,351, despite buying the same products and services as men” (Mekouar, 1). Although the price differences may seem small on individual items, this shows how much they can add up over the course of a year. Image the cost difference over an entire lifetime. The New York City Department of Affairs conducted a report on pink tax. They examined 794 products that were comparable between the men and women’s version. They also used 91 different brands in the study. The study included, “five different industries, such as personal care products or senior/home healthcare products. These encompassed 35 product categories, such as body wash or shampoo. In every single of those five industries, consumer goods marketed to women and girls cost more. The same was the case in all but five of the 35 product categories” (Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing, 1). The evidence from the study was overwhelming in proving that pink tax is legitimate in almost all categories of consumer goods. Women are faced with higher prices on a multitude of items that they need to purchase for everyday use. Some arguments say that women’s products may cost more to make, however, when looking at the price of children’s toys, that argument loses some validity. Many girl’s children’s toys are more expensive than boys. According to a study, “Researchers looked at 106 products in the toys and accessories category and found that, on average, those intended for girls were priced 7 percent higher” (Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing, 1). Companies will sell the exact same toy, however, the pink version meant for girls will be priced higher than the blue or red version meant for boys. A simple color change does not justify an increase in price. This is again seen with personal care products, for example, a five-pack of Schick Hydro cartridges in purple packaging cost $18.49, while the same count of Schick Hydro refills in blue packaging cost $14.99” (Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing, 1). These examples demonstrate how the price increases on many women’s and girl’s products are unfair and unjust as they are not due to any valid cost differences. These demonstrate the gender discrimination that companies exploit in their marketing and pricing to get women to spend more money on items that they need for everyday life. Without legislation to disallow these practices, corporations will continue to exploit the needs of women.

The other side of the debate’s argument is that there if sensible reasoning as to why the women’s products are priced higher. They claim that price differences are simply due to differences in audience and production costs and should not be considered gender discrimination. According to research, “women are more likely to pay more to buy an exact product that addresses an exact need that they are looking for, and the brands supply this demand with these curated products” (Faber, 1). For example, if women have frizzy hair, they are likely to buy a shampoo that specifically targets frizzy hair rather than a more general option. They claim that, “extra varied products cost money to research and formulate, and graphic designers and marketers are then needed to make the product a reality that is added to the array of products on your local Walgreen’s shelves” (Faber, 1). Although this information is valid and makes sense, it is not explaining the price differences in comparable products like the Schick razors or Dove deodorant that are basically the same product at different prices. The differences in the pricing of identical products is what illuminates the injustice and gender discrimination of pink tax. 

Although some women’s products may cost more to produce than others, that does not change the fact that women are being charged more than men for comparable and even almost identical products. Corporations are unfairly targeting women and charging them heightened prices for essential products. Not only is this happening to women, but companies are targeting young girls as well as seen in the pricing discrepancies in toys and clothing. Legislation has ended gender discrimination in the past in other industries but has failed thus far to end it in the product industry. Although we have not touched on gender discrimination much in this class, we have addressed other types such as racial discrimination. For example, in the novel “March”, black freedom fighters used many methods to demand changes in legislation such as sit ins, protests, and marches. Legislation has not yet been able to be passed on pink tax, therefore there is still work to be done in order to right this injustice. Without change, the market will still target women with higher priced items as long as we continue to pay for them. I leave you with the following actions that you can take to fight against the gender discrimination of pink tax:

• support companies that provide gender-neutral pricing of their products
• buy more gender-neutral items while shopping to avoid pink tax and boycott the products that companies are unjustly inflating the price of
• always compare prices when shopping to make yourself aware of pink tax items
• Talk to state representatives, retailers, and educate others on social media regarding this issue. Your voice can make a difference!

Sources:  

Faber, Faith. “Pink Tax? Economically It Makes Sense.” The Index, 11 Nov. 2019, www.thekzooindex.com/pink-tax-economically-it-makes-sense/#:~:text=Pink%20Tax%20is%20the%20idea,is%20a%20discrimination%20against%20women.&text=Women’s%20products%20and%20men’s%20products,to%20economics%20rather%20than%20discrimination.

Mekouar, Dora. “Does ‘Pink Tax’ Force Women to Pay More than Men?” Voice of America, www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/does-pink-tax-force-women-pay-more-men.

Pink Tax: The Real Cost of Gender-Based Pricing. www.healthline.com/health/the-real-cost-of-pink-tax.

“The Pink Tax: What Is It And How Can I Avoid It?” Rocket HQ, Rocket HQ, 21 Sept. 2020, www.rockethq.com/learn/personal-finances/the-pink-tax-what-is-it-and-how-can-i-avoid-it#:~:text=One%20side%20argues%20that%20the,fought%20or%20even%20regulated%20against.