This is How Systemic Racism Works

[CaffeineDiary]

…as in Cosmpolitian, who for perhaps the first time in their history publishes a spread where 10% of the women in it are black...and calls all of them ugly.

 

Try to imagine what it must be like to grow up in a world not just where people believe that your appearance is the definition of 'wrong', but that no one even notices that they think or say it.

[Heatherwith4]

That's really sad.

 

I'm not a fan of Cosmo or Glamour, but I used to read them a lot when I was younger.

[Butter]

I just glanced over the links, but it doesn't look like they were calling the black women themselves ugly.  I think they were saying that those beauty trends need to die.  Were all of the "good" trends white women?  Were any of the white women marked with RIP?  I don't read any of those sort of magazines so I have no idea if this is typical or not.

[.Michelle.]

The breakdown was 21 bad trends, comprised of 4 minority women and 17 white women, and 21 good trends, comprised of 21 white women.

[Tree Frog]

What struck me when I looked at the article was that all 4 of the black women who are RIP are replaced by white (or possibly hispanic) women. I understand some looks are out (and some of those are far out!), but replace the RIP's with women of the same color. So instead of replacing the 4 black RIP's with white women, replace them with other black women. 

 

 

[CaffeineDiary]

This is the reason I called it "systemic racism", because it's the sort of article that you could only manage to publish if you somehow had an editorial chain where not a single woman of color, at some point in the chain, got to look at the article.  Because it really does jump out at you.

 

Do I think that the authors of the article were intentionally making a racist statement?  Not at all.  That's the point.  The assumptions of white supremacy are the water we swim in, and under most everyday circumstances go completely unnoticed and unremarked on.

[Laurie4b]

I just glanced over the links, but it doesn't look like they were calling the black women themselves ugly.  I think they were saying that those beauty trends need to die.  Were all of the "good" trends white women?  Were any of the white women marked with RIP?  I don't read any of those sort of magazines so I have no idea if this is typical or not.

 

I want to comment on these questions, because they are  common reactions whenever any kind of discrimination is brought up. So I am not intending to pick on the individual poster at all.

 

To have a pattern of discrimination, you don't need 100% to 0%.  For instance, in a business, if in the last year 1 woman got promoted and 8 men did out of a potential pool of 10 women and 20 male candidates, there is a pattern of discrimination there. A woman had a 1 in 10 chance of being promoted; a man had a 4 in 10 chance of being promoted. I can't tell you the number of times in which if there is a single outlier to a pattern that I've seen people use it as evidence that there isn't a pattern at all. So rather than asking if all (100%) the "good" trend women were white (in this case, rather unbelievably, they were), or if  any  RIPS were white, it's better to look for a trend.Even if there is a  "token" representation of those in a minority, that is more of a nod to the need for diversity without actually embracing diversity.  When you are looking to determine whether there is a pattern, percentages are usually more reliable indicators.

 

In order for there to be systematic racism, there don't need to be overt racist remarks. The darned unconscious racism can be literally as deadly (as when police have to make a split-second decision as to whether or not to shoot and are influenced by unconscious, implicit racism) and it is certainly harder to point out. They don't have to call the women themselves ugly to convey that impression. Of course, no one was saying the women of color were ugly---in actual words. However, the photos were saying that because 100% of the women of color who were even in the spread were RIPs. 0 % were in "good trends." And as I said above, you don't even need a 100% vs. 0 % to show a pattern, but Cosmo managed it. And then rather than using it as a learning experience, issued a non-apology saying things had been lifted out of context.  :thumbdown:

[*Inna*]

Um. All I see is that on the left, the RIP pictures are mostly of older celebs and on the right are pictures of professional models that look like 15 year olds.

 

ETA: And to be honest, in my opinion, every one of these trends are ugly.

[Laurie]

This is the reason I called it "systemic racism", because it's the sort of article that you could only manage to publish if you somehow had an editorial chain where not a single woman of color, at some point in the chain, got to look at the article.  Because it really does jump out at you.

 

 

 

Maybe it jumped out at you.  It didn't for me...not at all.  I guess I'm able to read an article about beauty trends and focus on the actual examples of "graphic eyeliner", bold lipstick, etc.  It didn't for a minute cause me to think one model was "ugly" and the other one was part of a superior race! 

 

I don't buy these magazines.  If you tell me that they only use white models then I'll agree with you that there's a big problem.  But these particular photos...no.    We can't have it both ways...we either have a colorblind society or we have to hyperfocus on skin color at all times (and good luck to the article, etc. that doesn't get the numbers right.) 

 

My advice:  Lighten up, people!  (No white supremacy intended!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paige]

The thing about systemic racism or any kind of systemic prejudice: sexism, ageism, ethnocentrism, etc, is that it won't jump out at you if you aren't sensitized to it. It only works because we are easily blind to it and it's easy to dismiss as isolated, meaningless incidents.

[gardenmom5]

The thing about systemic racism or any kind of systemic prejudice: sexism, ageism, ethnocentrism, etc, is that it won't jump out at you if you aren't sensitized to it. It only works because we are easily blind to it and it's easy to dismiss as isolated, meaningless incidents.

 

will people include the male bashing humor in advertising?

[Laurie4b]

Maybe it jumped out at you.  It didn't for me...not at all.  I guess I'm able to read an article about beauty trends and focus on the actual examples of "graphic eyeliner", bold lipstick, etc.  Do you mean that your way the correct or better way to read it?   It didn't for a minute cause me to think one model was "ugly" and the other one was part of a superior race! That's a straw man. No one is saying that.  It's subliminal. 

 

I don't buy these magazines.  If you tell me that they only use white models then I'll agree with you that there's a big problem.  But these particular photos...no.    We can't have it both ways...we either have a colorblind society or we have to hyperfocus on skin color at all times (and good luck to the article, etc. that doesn't get the numbers right.) That is a false binary. We do not have to "hyperfocus" on skin color; we do not have to be blind to the experiences of people in another group. We can be a "color/ethnic appreciative"  society focusing on the contributions of different ethnicities and we can be a color-sensitive society meaning we listen to people who aren't in the majority when they share their views on how something impacts them.

 

 

 

.

[Truscifi]

Maybe it jumped out at you.  It didn't for me...not at all.  I guess I'm able to read an article about beauty trends and focus on the actual examples of "graphic eyeliner", bold lipstick, etc.  It didn't for a minute cause me to think one model was "ugly" and the other one was part of a superior race! 

 

I don't buy these magazines.  If you tell me that they only use white models then I'll agree with you that there's a big problem.  But these particular photos...no.    We can't have it both ways...we either have a colorblind society or we have to hyperfocus on skin color at all times (and good luck to the article, etc. that doesn't get the numbers right.) 

 

My advice:  Lighten up, people!  (No white supremacy intended!)

 

This is a rather extreme dichotomy I think. We certainly don't live in a colorblind society at this point, and pretending we do prevents progress toward such a society. But nobody, at least nobody here, is hyperfocusing on race or saying it is the only issue that matters.

 

On the CR thread many people seemed to not understand implicit bias, what it is and that it exists in our society. Noticing that a magazine did not have a single woman of color to use as an example of "good" beauty is not hyperfocusing. It is pointing out an example of this implicit bias to hopefully change it.

 

Our society has made a lot of progress in confronting and reducing overt racism. But honestly that was the easy part because it is so obvious. Now we're getting to the hard part.

[SKL]

This is clearly unfortunate, but I don't consider Cosmopolitan to be part of the "system."

 

However, I hope they are called out on it and it encourages them to be more thoughtful going forward.

 

Of course what I really wish is that no girl of any color would ever look at that magazine, which I consider one of the most unhealthy, misogynist products ever openly marketed to girls.  But I suppose that is too much to hope for.

[poppy]

will people include the male bashing humor in advertising?

 

Stereotypes suck. 

 

On the other hand, I don't think we've never once been a thread about racism  where at least one person doesn't say "but why won't anyone talk about _______". (In the Chris Rock thread, it was poverty).   All fine things to talk about but start your own thread, for once.  My takeaway is that people really really really hate talking about race.

 

On the other hand, I think this photo-essay is eye roll worthy at most.   Cosmo is not an admirable publication.

[poppy]

Actually, no, this is a false dichotomy.

 

Here is an interesting explanation as to why "colorblindness" doesn't solve racism. Among other things, it denies racism is still a huge problem rather than acknowledging that society is not post-racism at all.

 

We can acknowledge racism exists and is a problem without hyperfocusing on race all the time. Lightening up is easy when you're not the target of these unconscious microaggressions all the time (in addition to simple all-out racism, which also happens). When you are the target of these things, it is clear that lightening up is no solution. 

 

Yeah, "colorblind society" is kind of like Esperanto.  If you squint it sounds like a great idea, but it has never worked on a wide scale, and has not been a serious goal  for many, many years. 

[mathmarm]

The thing about systemic racism or any kind of systemic prejudice: sexism, ageism, ethnocentrism, etc, is that it won't jump out at you if you aren't sensitized to it. It only works because we are easily blind to it and it's easy to dismiss as isolated, meaningless incidents.

 

will people include the male bashing humor in advertising?

Isn't it included in sexism? Sexism, like most other prejudices, can and does work both ways.

 

[Tanaqui]

 

Isn't it included in sexism? Sexism, like most other prejudices, can and does work both ways.

 

Bigotry can work both ways, yes. However, often when people talk about "sexism" or "racism", they aren't talking about personal prejudices, but about systematic injustice. That doesn't work both ways. In this thread, we're definitely talking about the systemic sort of -isms. For that, you don't even need to be consciously aware that you're doing something racist/sexist/ablist.

 

Yeah, "colorblind society" is kind of like Esperanto.  If you squint it sounds like a great idea, but it has never worked on a wide scale, and has not been a serious goal  for many, many years.

 

It only sounds like a great idea if you think everybody being the same is the goal of affirmative action. Funnily enough, people who promote colorblindness as a laudable goal tend to give off this air of thinking that colorblind = everybody is the same as THEM.

[mathmarm]

@Tanaqui and Dialectica: Excellent point indeed about sexism and institutionalized or systematic prejudice, thank you for pointing that out for me because I overlooked it and almost missed the point. Because I think of the popular practice and abundant use of male-bashing humor as a form of sexism that is systematically used by "The Institution", to me, that is just what it is. But I can see why thats a slippery slope to stand on.

[gardenmom5]

 .  My takeaway is that people really really really hate talking about race. .

 

and some people try to make *everything* about race. (or gender).  that's the objection.  oh, and I grew up in a very liberal and pc family.

 

cosmo is hardly a paragon of virtue and how to be a better person. (I agree with whomever said they're misogynistic).  it's very superficial.

I did look at the pix. with the "what's wrong with the models" since that was the expectation from the introduction in this thread.  some of the most cringe worthy to me pix were of white women. (I did get a creepy feel from some of the look/underage models.)  only one of the black models looked "off" to me.

 

styling can be changed.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

When you are the minority, everything often is about it. There is little to nothing you do that isn't affected some way by systemic racism/sexism/classism etc.

 

Recognizing it exists is a giant leap towards change.

 

But if you are fully blind to it (willfully or not), you aren't going to be part of the change.

[kroe1]

None of these women, irrespective of skin tone, look like any of my friends. Even my pretty friends aren't as beautiful as all of the ladies in such magazines. That is why I do not read those types. They make me feel inferior no matter what my color is.

[poppy]

and some people try to make *everything* about race. (or gender).  that's the objection.  oh, and I grew up in a very liberal and pc family.

 

cosmo is hardly a paragon of virtue and how to be a better person. (I agree with whomever said they're misogynistic).  it's very superficial.

I did look at the pix. with the "what's wrong with the models" since that was the expectation from the introduction in this thread.  some of the most cringe worthy to me pix were of white women. (I did get a creepy feel from some of the look/underage models.)  only one of the black models looked "off" to me.

 

styling can be changed.

 

  I don't think anyone makes everything about race.  Imagine if every time we talked about homeschooling here, someone piped up "When are we going to address the fact that our homeschooling community is disproportionally white?"  If every time someone mentioned a convention someone said "Let's be sure the convention looks like America, in terms of number of hispanic, black and asian representation."  If every time we talked about SN assessments, someone posted,  "obviously these tests are at least a little racially biased".   That doesn't happen. And shouldn't.

[albeto.]

and some people try to make *everything* about race. (or gender).

 

Do you think that's the case about this particular example?

 

cosmo is hardly a paragon of virtue and how to be a better person. (I agree with whomever said they're misogynistic).  it's very superficial.

I did look at the pix. with the "what's wrong with the models" since that was the expectation from the introduction in this thread.  some of the most cringe worthy to me pix were of white women. (I did get a creepy feel from some of the look/underage models.)  only one of the black models looked "off" to me.

 

Regardless of one's personal opinion about the value systems Cosmo may support or project, the point, I think, is not that some women are more or less beautiful than others, but that when focusing on cosmetic trends, the natural default seems to be to find the younger, fairer woman provides a better example of the more desirable cosmetic look even though these variables are not within the specific target of this comparison. I think it's worth noting that youth, and health, and vitality, and sexuality are correlated with ideas of attractiveness regardless of culture or fashion trends, so it's only fair to expect certain looks to be more attractive than others in every society a. I suspect it's biologically driven and so has a morally neutral value on its own. The argument presented is that the Cosmo article is an example of a pervasive trend that permeates society in a subtle but negative way, and regardless of whether or not it catches our immediate attention, it's worthy of adjustment when it's pointed out.

 

styling can be changed.

 

Indeed. Do you think inspiring change away from racism is a good thing when it is identified, or might it be something that would eventually be modified without specific attention called to it?

[goldberry]

 

Of course what I really wish is that no girl of any color would ever look at that magazine, which I consider one of the most unhealthy, misogynist products ever openly marketed to girls.  But I suppose that is too much to hope for.

 

:iagree:   I used to read Cosmo when I was in my 20s.  I am now appalled by the content and wonder, how could I have read that stuff and not seen it for what it was?

[Farrar]

It's so sad to me that anyone can see this and think race was not a factor in choosing those examples. I'm pretty sure no one at Cosmo sat down and said, "Make sure that all the black women are examples of the bad trends!" but I'm also sure the race was at play subconsciously. You don't have to want to be racist for the results to still come out racist.

 

And of course most of the people on this board probably roll their eyes at Cosmo no matter who's in there. That doesn't mean that they aren't still a trendsetter in some quarters, influencing how people think. So it's still worth it to point this out to them, to society, etc.

[SKL]

The idea of looking to Cosmo to provide any sort of positive or healthy message about anything is so strange to me.

 

I mean, it's like complaining because black women are underrepresented in porno flicks.  (I don't know if that is true or not, but if it was.)

 

Actually it would not surprise me if they realized they were only showing lighter skin as "beauty" and made a conscious decision to do that, because after all, even black girls tend to view lighter skin color as more beautiful.  And Cosmo could care less if that is damaging, just like Cosmo doesn't care if it's damaging to encourage them to have multiple sex partners before they are old enough to drive.

 

I think I would foot the bill for the party if they ever went out of business.

[Farrar]

SKL, I take your point, but I also think there's no reason that in a diverse nation that the mainstream beauty magazines should be that white. It's not about looking to them for a healthy image, it's wanting all corners of society to stop and reflect about how systematic racism touches every corner of our lives.

[flyingiguana]

I'm just so glad they labelled which were ugly and which were not.  I never would have been able to figure it out on my own. (Insert appropriate snark emoticon)

[LisaKinVA]

The breakdown was 21 bad trends, comprised of 4 minority women and 17 white women, and 21 good trends, comprised of 21 white women.

Going to put in a small correction. Nicole Ritchie is one of the trends, and as Lionel Ritchie's daughter...she's at least one minority woman. Not that I read Cosmo, nor can I pull off any of the things pictured. Leaving now...because, I don't think the minor correction answers the thrust of the argument.

[AHASRADA]

Going to put in a small correction. Nicole Ritchie is one of the trends, and as Lionel Ritchie's daughter...she's at least one minority woman. Not that I read Cosmo, nor can I pull off any of the things pictured. Leaving now...because, I don't think the minor correction answers the thrust of the argument.

I'm pretty sure she was adopted and is of hispanic ancestry. Not sure it really matters, though, at least she's still technically a minority, albeit a very privileged light-skinned one.

[katilac]

I'm pretty sure she was adopted and is of hispanic ancestry. Not sure it really matters, though, at least she's still technically a minority, albeit a very privileged light-skinned one.

 

She is adopted and of mixed ancestry: black, white, hispanic. 

[TranquilMind]

Maybe it jumped out at you.  It didn't for me...not at all.  I guess I'm able to read an article about beauty trends and focus on the actual examples of "graphic eyeliner", bold lipstick, etc.  It didn't for a minute cause me to think one model was "ugly" and the other one was part of a superior race! 

 

I don't buy these magazines.  If you tell me that they only use white models then I'll agree with you that there's a big problem.  But these particular photos...no.    We can't have it both ways...we either have a colorblind society or we have to hyperfocus on skin color at all times (and good luck to the article, etc. that doesn't get the numbers right.) 

 

My advice:  Lighten up, people!  (No white supremacy intended!)

Exactly.  It was about different hair or makeup.  I never for a second thought it was about race. 

 

They were ALL beautiful women anyway.  It wasn't about them, and certainly not about their race.