White women try to "reclaim power" through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait.. I had power? When ? Where?? What did it look like??
Signed,
White woman

Compared to a similarly situated woman of color? Sure you did. I don't know your situation, but maybe it simply looked like not getting arrested if you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Could be a lot of things.

You are conflating advantages with power. Most women don't have power. White women not getting arrested is not power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

I think NPR is just giving the people the [middle-aged white women's] blood they're clambering for. Someone convinced them that their virtue and allyship demands that they sacrifice us.

The underlying problem is with theorists who demand obedience and respond to critical questions with insults. NPR is helping to make this nonsensical demonizing socially acceptable, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Do you have a link? I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

What happened is that it became socially acceptable to say derogatory, race-based things about white people and especially white women. This is accepted in all sorts of liberal/left spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

I’m one of the PPs who has stopped listening to NPR because it has become devoted to protecting male hegemony. I don’t feel a need to persuade anyone of why I think that. However, for what it’s worth I have stopped all donations to NPR stations after a lifetime of donation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

I’m one of the PPs who has stopped listening to NPR because it has become devoted to protecting male hegemony. I don’t feel a need to persuade anyone of why I think that. However, for what it’s worth I have stopped all donations to NPR stations after a lifetime of donation.

Pp here. OK, but you could stop me donating if you bothered to convince me.