Nash Grier, Feminism, and a Parent and Daughter's Response.

If you live in North America and have a teenage daughter, you will mostly likely have heard of Nash Grier. Nash is a 'Vine' star, YouTuber, and Twitterer with a sense of importance that vastly surpasses his limited comedic ability. Frankly, the only honest claim to any sort of merit he has (and that itself is unearned), are his "dazzling blue eyes," as more than one teenager puts it.

A few weeks ago, this 16 year old, along with two of his pals (also YouTube famous), posted a video entitled, “What guys look for in girls,” to a following of close to 5 million fans (99% female).
While seated together all comfy on the couch, the three proceeded to spend the next 9 plus minutes telling impressionable girls what boys (meaning them), like in girls. Each buffoon had the gall to express his sexist, misogynistic opinion. Insulting the majority of girls, they attempted to fit the female exuberance and plentitude into their sickening, hollywood-inspired concept of what a girl should be.

According to these foolish boys, in order for them to find a girl attractive,  the girl needs to, "get a personality," "be natural," "be spontaneous," "don’t be too loud and obnoxious," "be funny,"  "know how to be quiet."

Do you have a bucket at the ready? You’ll need it if you plan to make it through to the end of the video..
"Entertain me." That is what Nash said.
That. Is. What. Nash. Said.
These privileged, white males are looking for girls who can challenge them; who can “improve them," "I like girls that will stay on top of you," "girls that make you a better you,"... "girls that have talent." "It's cool to be captain of the cheer team," "if the girls have their own ambitions  they are going somewhere," according to these visionaries.

"Shave!' they command your daughters. "Get rid of your peach fuzz, get rid of your armpit hair (and I’m thinking somewhere else too—one woman in her 30s told me that growing up, her friends and herself believed that they needed to look like porn stars with shaved public hair in order to be "hot," and therefore "acceptable to the male gaze.").

"Be yourself," they conclude, their thumbs up—after spending the entire video telling girls that they need to be something else in order to please their trivial fantasies.

Naturally, girls of colour need not apply.

The depth of contempt these males display towards any female who doesn't fit their criteria for attractiveness is breathtaking.
It would be laughable, easily dismissible, except Nash has close to 5 million girl fans. Did I already say that?

So.. if your daughter still likes them, looks like you might have a problem..the problem of internalized misogyny.

Parents, teach your children well.

If you have sons, it is crucial that you teach them girls are not put on the earth to serve them. Girls are not here for their pleasure.  They will not entertain.
Parents with daughters: Girls are individuals who are not here to please nor cater to the male gaze. They are not here to ‘improve’ your sons.

I am fortunate to have daughters who are not hoodwinked or diminished by such arrogance.
My youngest called this video to my attention. When she showed us the video—myself and her older sisters—as well as the responses,  one daughter wanted to show her "spontaneity" in more than one way, (like offering them a knuckle sandwich).
The senior, a long time social justice activist, was able to add a deeper perspective to the entire conversation—explaining to us that though many of the responses to the video were justified in their outrage, indeed this was still a ""My First Feminism" type thing, where the basic acquired knowledge of a liberal feminist would suffice in a response."

She helpfully pointed out that in her more advanced social justice circles, because this type of display is such a really shallow, surface expression of patriarchy, "there generally wasn't a lot to do, beyond criticizing their entitlement and body-shaming."

Here's how she put it:

"It's babysteps. Everyone has an entrance point when it comes to being a feminist. The most common is the patriarchal gaze, which is on women from the moment we are born (before we are born!). How we are expected to present, being told to look a certain way for the sake of boys and men, being told to smile, being told that we can't dress a certain way because it's too slutty or too matronly or whatever."

A less mature feminism doesn't necessarily realize the correlation between sexism and other forms of oppression. 

"It is usually completely ignorant to the way in which the beauty standard is particularly harmful to women of colour, trans women, women with disabilities, etc. I went through that phase two years ago. That was when I thought you could only really devote yourself to one cause because I didn't understand intersectionality. The gaze is also cissexist, because it intrinsically links gender identity with assigned sex! Which, again, is something that a lot of cisgender feminists (especially ones who are new to the movement) don't understand!"Where ever you are along the feminist path, the way in which you physically present yourself does not determine your worth: Your value is not defined by whether boys like you.

Awesome!

Skin Color: The Shame of Silence. Book Review.

Skin color matters.
If you think that in today's society, skin color is no longer an issue, you are probably still being white.

 History matters! At a conference for Christian groups to learn from Indigenous people about moving towards reconciliation and justice, one of the participants—a reverend of a church—later said to me, "I expected to be inspired! I expected to learn something new, something I hadn't heard before. Instead I was made to feel guilty and uncomfortable."
"If it has to be said over and over again, maybe that’s because people like you have yet to take responsibility for your inherited white skin privilege," I wanted to say. "Did you think you would come here not be challenged?" I replied instead.
The poor man was expecting great things of others and very little of himself!

This is an example of why we are nowhere near a just society for all.  It is why we need books such as Skin color: The shame of silence by Conrad P. Pritscher.
White people need white awareness education by white people.White people need to acknowledge their white skin privilege. White people need to be challenged and they need to challenge the deeply ingrained, deeply harmful belief of white supremacy that is ingrained in our culture.
This book helps white people talk to white people about white racism, “since people of color have been talking about these racial matters until they are “blue” in the face and it does not seem to make a dent in the institutionalized racism (white racism) that continues to exist in our society.”(23)

Pritscher defines himself as a recovering racist—‘recovering racist' implying that "although European Americans are often born and acculturated into a racist society, in a position of power and greater wealth because of their ancestry, they can recover from this societally inherited disease if they choose to by actively fighting the racism in themselves, as well as in the larger, institutionally racist society.

Education
Not until we have higher levels of white awareness (by whites) will we have a noticeable reduction in racism.  Education is at the heart of how we can reduce racism and Pritscher’s writing is an offering of how to do so—in and out of school.
So before you protest loudly, “I’m white but I‘m not racist. I don’t need this book,’
I invite you to pause for a moment. If you are living your life blind to your white privilege, you are part of the problem.
Pritscher argues that if as an educator, you are not actively addressing issues of racism, then you are likely perpetuating racism: “If you are actively permitting the status quo, you are permitting racism period. The responsibility is yours to work towards racial justice.” (36).

It does not surprise me when Pritscher postulates that the demand for certainty in our society—to exist in comforting constraints—breeds and upholds attitudes of rigidity and inflexibility of mind.
He argues that currently, schooling provides conditions for the continuation of racism. He points out the connections that have been made between rigid thinking, (“closedness’), conformity and desire for predictability to heightened degrees of racism. He emphasizes that there is a strong link between "dogged and excessive obedience to authority" (which schools often cultivate) and a tendency towards racism.
  “Should we ask what kind of schooling promotes people who are prone to fear and aggression, are resistant to change, and are intolerant of ambiguity?  What continues to foster such high needs to obey authority and to be certain?” Conrad asks (18).

Pritscher explores the pitfalls of traditional schooling (including college and universities), and the idea that it tends to control students minds to the point where students often seek additional control, conforming to the dictations of the 1%.

High Quality Education

Education is not enough. What is required now is a fundamental shifting of how we educate; a high quality education described by Pritscher as comprising of self-direction, “which is thought to help people be more tolerant of ambiguity, be more open to change.”
Quality learners will be less prone to fear and aggression, which is after all the root of racism.
Pritscher explains, “Self-directed education (quality learning rather than ‘training’) fosters freedom and in turn, racism reduction. To self direct your learning is to be open to the unexpected, the surprise and the habitual chaos. It is to be unafraid of ambiguity, uncertainty but nurtures the believe in oneself, not external authority and in turn less suspicion of others.”

Other examples of what white people can do to unlearn racist ways include ‘living room sessions,’—inviting friends and families to share discussions on oppression, contacting school boards, school superintendents, teachers, city council members, and others in positions of power, with phone calls, letters to the editor, e-mails etc. and expressing the view that “we now, as whites, need to be a traitor to whiteness if we are to be loyal to humanity.”

Pritscher covers the roots of white privilege and the contribution of our 'image and idea makers' (experts and researchers in the fields of social sciences, psychiatry, medicine, education) towards perpetuating oppression, when they tell us what is normal, abnormal, deviant) “These images and ideas are used to label, divide and oppress people, often in ways that are difficult to detect.”

But: “There's no one natural category for anything, yet the mostly white value system generally holds that there is.  We too often believe that there is an essential nature of man.  Once this nature is discovered through science, it is used to determine value.  One of these implicit white values was, and continues to be for some whites, that whites are better than African-Americans and other people of color. (38).

Pritscher very kindly takes in to consideration your white feelings:
“This does not mean white people are bad.  It means the way we have taught our young has not changed in over a century.  We, our parents, and grandparents often unconsciously hold that which prevents us from noticeably reducing racism.”(21).

In conclusion, speaking as a person of colour, white people need to take their hurt feelings out of the picture (“Oh I feel so awkward—“me, me this is all about me and my feelings”). They need to stop undermining the experiences of people of colour, ("Some of the nuns are hurt by all this talk about how bad the residential schools. It wasn’t all evil.”). They need to be willing to do this work so that we can have a just society for all people.

With Pritscher, “white people can no longer in good conscience, avoid  dealing with the bigotry and racism that is ingrained in white communities. It is white people’s responsibility to educate themselves on these issues.”