It took half a day but something about my mother’s performance of respectable black person — her Queen’s English, her Mahogany outfit, her straight bob and pearl earrings — got done what the elderly lady next door had not been able to get done in over a year. I learned, watching my mother, that there was a price we had to pay to signal to gatekeepers that we were worthy of engaging. It meant dressing well and speaking well. It might not work. It likely wouldn‘t work but on the off chance that it would, you had to try. It was unfair but, as Vivian also always said, “life isn’t fair little girl.”
Reshared post from +Jürgen Hubert
This has given me some serious food for thought.
(Via +Graham Walmsley .)
The Logic of Stupid Poor People
We hates us some poor people. First, they insist on being poor when it is so easy to not be poor. They do things like buy expensive designer belts and $2500 luxury handbags. To be fair, this isn’t …
This post has been reshared 1 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
In a word, bullshit. There's a reason that the phrase "Dress for the job you want, not the job you have." is said, and not only in poor/black/female circles, but in rich/white/male circles as well.
How you present yourself has a lot to do with how people perceive you, and the absolute guilt-baiting article betrays the authors inability to get the point.
Her mother dressed and presented herself well, and was rewarded for it. That's the whole story. Making it a race issue, so blatantly, is trying to sell your bias with a switched price-tag. It's cheap and it comes across as cheap.
e; To summarize her article, "Some people have it rough, and that justifies spending beyond your means because people need to treat themselves to feel good."
Thank you, for the slap in the face, as I buy store-brand everything, used clothing, and eat ramen for the 5th fucking month to stay out of debt. Let's reassure people that debt is just fine. Gotta get that Gucci, right?
I have to agree with +Dorian Trent on the point about race. The author could have been describing my own grandmother, mother, and life in poor to lower middle class America, complete with the "life ain't fair" lesson.
The perception problems described aren't exclusive to race – they're issues of class. If you seem to have none – with speech patterns, manner of dress, and/or attitude and demeanor – you get treated as if you have none. End of story.
Both of you skipped reading the attached Tweet, didn't you.
Yes, the author's perspective is that of a black woman. So what.
I reshared it because it's valid for anyone, especially in the context of the Tweet, which changes the context of the article to one of "Stop being such a judgemental asshole, asshole. A $2500 handbag (or suit) might land you a $50,000/year job."
And that's true no matter who you are.
I did read the tweet; please tell me how rims or grills ever got someone a job.
e; Or, fuck it, a nice purse. The article described a woman who dressed well. Not a woman who had a D&G bag.
I don't see where the tweet or the article mentions either one of those things. That's on you.
No, it's the implicit message – that criticizing someone for spending outside their means is invalid – because (what the author assumes was) expensive clothing helped the author's mother.
The bag isn't clothing. Are we to assume that the article only covers women's clothing? We've already deviated slightly into accessories. How convoluted is our exception?
For me to show two extreme examples where most people will agree the exception doesn't extend (semi-alliteration on fucking purpose, you're welcome) merely demonstrates that the scope of exemption, if any should exist, is limited and the only discussion to be had is where the limit lies.
Only an idiot would criticize conservative economics on a microeconomics level. It's demonstrably true that it's the safest bet. If you want to get abstract (like most liberal economists do) on macroeconomics and suggest that systemic trends don't mimic micro-trends, fine. Fuck it. Have your stupid window breaking cake. But let's not emotionally attack a pretty safe assumption that those without money should not spend money they don't have on items without a demonstrable ROI.
If it's a suit for an interview, fine. It's 2 grand on a purse, you're a fucking idiot – and we've nailed down why and how you're poor. Because you spend 2 grand when you don't have it to spend. And you can go fuck your grandma stories, because they don't fucking apply. Just because you throw it at the wall doesn't mean it sticks.
There's another life lesson, for free.
e; Coffee makes me a lil' edgy, but I think it's rather subtle. Can you tell?
Didn't think the Tweet was as important as the opinion piece itself, but more so, it wasn't relevant to my comment. If I've missed some correlation, please explain.