Job Search: To 'Self-Identify' or Not

Image: BrandonSigma

Job searching can be stressful. Even with the latest technological advances that facilitated the process, there's no feeling like the uneasiness that comes with putting yourself out there to find work. You're putting yourself to the test, reading job descriptions, and becoming self-critical of yourself as you wonder if you're over-qualified or under-qualified.
 
Aside from credentials, experience, or education, another factor people may worry about in applying for a job is their race and ethnic background. I occasionally hear or read interesting job hunt stories from close friends and others, and this is something I think about, but not something I have much experience in.
 
Discrimination is a common practice in the employment industry and even with laws against it, it occurs all the time. It usually has negative effects on marginalized people, specifically those of color. Every year I'm sure thousands of discrimination lawsuits are filed, and a majority of those lawsuits are typically filed by people who are, or have worked at the place of employment. But what about discrimination before getting a job? The tricky thing about discrimination in the job application process, is that you are not aware if someone is discriminating against you. I mean how would you know when so many factors are up to the plate?
 
You may think you're perfectly qualified for a job position, but the recruiter may not think so. And what is the reason why? And one can't say candidates aren't judged by their appearance or how they look, because why else is 'dress professionally' a commonplace stance for in-office interviews?
 
Perhaps that is why I'm hesitant when it comes to self-identifying myself on applications.
 
A few months ago came across an job opening that I wanted to apply for. I clicked the link and was directed to the company's website. I scanned the entire webpage before I entering any information and glanced at the job description again, and saw the details of the application as I scrolled. It was your typical job application page, then I got to the very bottom, and I saw not one, but two questions about self-identification.
 
So upon uploading, entering, and submitting information for the job position, it asks the applicant to voluntarily include their gender, ethnicity, and race. Keyword: voluntary.
 
I thought nothing of it until I wondered how much does this information really matter? I know that self-identification can be used for statistical purposes, and is even used to prevent discrimination, specifically against minorities. Still, I'm not so naive that this need to know an applicants self-identification isn't used to also prevent certain applicants. It reminded me a job interview I once had. The interview was a phone one and the process went great. The recruiter was very interested in my skills and blah blah, and asked me to come into the office for a more formal interview. I accepted and went.
 
Now I'm a very observant person, so when I got there I took note of my surroundings particularly the people there—I noticed something (explained below).
 
Long story short, the face-to-face interview went well and I never heard back from the recruiter or the company. It wasn't until a good month later after reading an article about job discrimination contributing to unemployment did I wonder....hey, it's possible. I will never know for sure, and in no way would I say my race or ethnicity was the reason why I never got a callback, but the likelihood lingers. Out of all the interviews I've ever went to, that was the first time I even had the thought. Whose to say the recruiter didn't think I was qualified for particular reasons? Is it possible I was judged by other things? This is an answer to a question one can never know, and I'll never know why I didn't get the job.
 
I mentioned previously, that in my observations I noticed something—it was the employees. Many of them looked the same; a good percentage of them shared the same gender, race, and so it seemed—religion. I fit neither three. It's possible the recruiter thought I just would not have fit in with the crowd.
 
Self-identify? Let them know who you are by your most easily identifiable physical descriptors, or don't tell them at all? I'm indifferent.
 
Everyday I'm reminded of the stereotypes and misconceptions that plague my race. I get the microagressive reminders from everyday people like doctors, store clerks, random strangers, or co-workers. So when I send in an application detailing who I am from my gender to my race, who is to say a preconceived notion isn't signaling an unfavorable assumption in that recruiters head? I'm not blind to what is out there. Just type black + women on any search engine and see what comes up, or is suggested for that matter. Do you really know if they're taking your self-identification information into account for positive reasons or negatives ones? One can wonder.

Before You Say Black People Can't or Don't Swim...

Image courtesy of franky242

Black people can't swim is one of the many racial stereotypes associated with Black people— possibly due to the lack of brown faces seen taking part in major swimming activities. But as the saying goes, stereotypes are true to an extent. I personally don't believe in this especially considering how and why they are formed, but that is a topic by itself. In this particular case, this is not always in control of the stereotyped group. But again I'd say majority of the stereotypes about Blacks were almost never in their control.

It was not long ago in America that legal laws were created to not just segregate whites from non-whites, but to actively bar and prohibit certain groups of people from enjoying even the most basic of fun-filled hobbies. Segregation in the the U.S. was the norm post Civil War, particularly the South. Many establishments were not open to non-White Anglo's (ex: Irish and Italians). Everything from bars, theaters, restaurants, department stores, clubs, and yes, swimming pools and beaches, were not open to Blacks or non-Anglos alike. What was available in many cases, were destitute places deemed unsuitable for Whites. That in turn caused Blacks to create their own settings, but due to lack of economic power, many Black establishments lacked—but they continued to strive due to the demand. Black people just wanted to have fun and enjoy recreation but the segregation of pools and beaches would prove to have some obvious lasting effects.

The few beaches Blacks were legally allowed, were routinely called Ink Well, based off a racist implication that if Black people swum, the water would turn dark like ink because of their skin color. Apparently, Black people contaminated these waters, but that was just one of the endless dehumanizing terms describing all things Black. When the push for desegregation became more and more political, opposition came from everywhere. Segregationists did not agree or like the idea of integration. It threatened their privilege and the power they held on to. Blacks who dared to want entry to White's Only establishments were met with violence. This included being attacked by angry mobs, having dogs sicked on them, having authorities remove and arrest them, or even worse—death. When there were opportunities for integration, segregationists would find ways to prevent them. Post-integration, White's Only establishments became private ones.

In this most horrifying photo below, a man is seen throwing bleach into a pool of Black youth swimming.

One can assume from this photo, how traumatic that experience could have been for these kids, and what fear came afterwards.

Fear of swimming and lack of experience are highly possible reasons as to why Black people, or people in general can't swim. But back to the actual stereotype. It may seem like harmless joke at first, but when Black people are drowning at higher rates than other races, it becomes a serious matter. There have been tragic incidents in the last few years of black teens drowning in water. 

In 2010, six Louisiana teens—six—drowned trying to save a friend who was also drowning. It was revealed that none of the teens knew how to swim. Six young bodies were pulled from the water and none lived. It was the most horrific tragedy, meanwhile statistics show that an estimated 70 percent of Black children can't swim, or have limited swimming ability (self-taught swimmers). Most recently, a New York teen drowned while on a field trip. 

Culture is created based on what those before left behind and how it continued or evolved. Swimming wasn't a go-to activity for many Blacks, not because they were scared of actual water, or even sillier, can't get their hair wet. Many Black families eventually avoided going or trying to gain access to beaches or pools due to prohibition. So how else were their children supposed to learn and experience swimming? Research even showed that if a parent doesn't know how to swim, the likelihood their child would know is at 13 percent. That number is extremely low but makes sense in terms of why Blacks drown at higher rates than Whites, especially given the history of access to water-leisure—it's generational. These children grew up, and while things changed, they didn't form the ambition to go swimming, and neither did their children, and their children.

Do you see where I'm going? Generations passed without swimming being a thing lots of Black people did, leading to not enough awareness or importance being placed on the need to swim. But although that is changing, and there have always been Black people that could swim (hello Caribbean/Sub-Saharan Africa), it has never been about race but accessibility and economics, and how the lack of it can affect cultural trends. Because drowning transcends race. Many Americans admit to not knowing how to swim. It doesn't erase the racial disparity, but it brings light to swimming being something many people may not see as a necessity, while it is. It's a skill everyone should have. And though segregated pools are over, what is the excuse today? It may still be fear, as well as generational transfer.

Olympic swimmer Cullen Jones has talked and campaigned about getting more Black children to learn how to swim. The Make a Splash initiative works to end disparity and drowning in children overall.

Protestors being fire-hosed in iconic Charles Moore photo

So before you say Black people can't or don't swim, first understand how it was ridiculously difficult for them to enjoy water leisure activities due to segregation. Understand how that affected the reason swimming may have never became an activity they participated in. Also consider how it affected cultural trends, and think where the fear of swimming would come from? Also remember that water (fire hoses) were used to attack Black people, which included young children.

To just assume Black people don't swim without consideration of their history, you are engaging in a racial stereotype which formed from disenfranchisement, and you're also dismissing that an estimated 36% of Americans can't swim.

White Girls Using N-Word....

....or non-Black people using the word for that matter.

I found this video about the N-word going around. In the video a Black woman denounces the usage of the N-word from two White female rappers who stirred ire by using it in their music a few years ago.

I'm not shy about the topic of the N-word, so heed that it will not be entirely censored in this post. 

Nigger, nigga, and negro have long been associated with the word Black and people who bare the description. In fact, they are synonymous whether people choose to admit that or not. What many in the Anglophone world know the word nigger as, is as a racial slur. Nigger without a doubt is one of the most offensive terms in the English language. But there's more of course; there's also spook, coon, pickaninny, sow, and a bevy of nasty words used to denigrate Black people.

The etymology of the word explains that it comes from the word niger, which in Latin means black or dark. Regardless of what this word used to mean, it eventually took on a different meaning in the 17th century, a meaning where it became a word that would be used to degrade the humanity of Black people.

Black people who are descendants of enslaved Africans brought to the colonies have called themselves different terms as years progressed. The last and currently accepted term was African-American, which gained popular usage in the '80s. Prior to that, colored or negro were the accepted terms. Derogatorily however, nigger was always the term used to call blacks, and it was not nor has it ever been an endearing or acceptable term to call Black people. Herein is my issue with echoing retorts that Black people should find no offense with the word due to the usage of it from Black entertainers (comedians/rappers), and some Black people overall who've incorporated the term into their everyday language.

Removing my own personal irritation with the word, I see why some Black people use the term. Some people seem to think that rap music and hip-hop began the reemergence and coining of the word as an endearing term. But the word has always been used against and amongst Blacks—music only popularized it and it DID NOT frickin' start with rap. Any avid listener of soul, blues, funk, or any Black American oldies genre can tell you it has always been used in Black music. The word may have also been a prerequisite for how often it was dropped in Blaxploitation films.

In its current usage, many Black people see it as an endearing term to use amongst themselves. I do not agree with it, however, it only makes sense why despite the words popularity in pop-culture, a lot of Black people do not like to hear non-Blacks use the word. The reason is simple—Black people referring to each other as nigga takes the offense out of the word. Why? Because of its irony. (This doesn't mean there aren't Black people who would be offended though). Non-Blacks, specifically racist Whites, have never used this term in a kind way towards Blacks. It has always been an offensive term used to refer to Black people. Whether someone non-Black might want to feel a closer connection to Blacks by also trying to use it endearingly, they should understand the racial dichotomy is still there and has always been. The negative connotation comes with the power structure White supremacy constructed, which is White/Light against Black/Dark; never the opposite. The "N-word" is triggering for a lot of English-speaking Black folks, and in a lot of cases, the N-word was the last thing Black people heard from racists before being lynched or murdered. So why would someone non-Black want to use it?

Black people have reclaimed the N-word, just as other minority or oppressed groups have with slurs targeted at them. Some women reclaim 'bitch,' and some in the LGBT community reclaim 'fag' or 'homo.' People in these groups using offensive slurs towards each other is ironic. No if, ands, or buts. If you're not Black, you have no right to dictate or police how Black people choose to talk with each other with the word. Because guess what? It's not even in the vocabulary of every Black person. You do however, have the right to correct and take offense by a Black person calling you the N-word if you are referred to as such. Despite the normalizing of the N-word, it's still not a word many people accept.

For non-White minorities who also want to use the word.....no, no, and nope! Being a "minority too" doesn't give you a pass. Please! It's always eye-opening for me to see self-identified 'Spanish' or Asians use the N-word, but flip at the thought of Blacks using anti-Asian/Latino slurs, and then in turn use the N-word again. In NYC where I live, I hear it from non-Black minorities a lot. My question to them is, you have your own racial slurs to reclaim, why do you want to use one that would never affect you? Especially when in some of your cultures, anti-Blackness is almost as common as brushing your teeth. Let's not also ignore that there are also N-word equivalents in your native languages.

You want me to be cool with you saying nigga when you and yours turn around and call me preta? No.

And your Black friends giving you a non-existent pass isn't sound advice to live by. Not every Black person is cool with that notion and you don't know how they'll react. Why? Because we aren't all the same. Just because Black Friend #1 and Black Friend #2 allow you say it around them, Random Black #345 is supposed to be OK with that? Where is the common sense? Does anyone talk to their friends, the way they talk with their parents? Do you joke with strangers the way you joke to your partner? Please! Don't expect people to be comfortable with terms that you use daily because your friends are OK with it. Anyone with good social skills should already know this. Besides, when negative terms are used among friends, I'd assume it was negotiated prior.

I'm also not a fan of Black people calling me the N-word, or my girl friends calling me the B-word, or any other slur. It's not a word I use to call other Blacks, and I choose not to use it because there are other words I choose to use because I know it's usage is brings mixed reactions. I don't buy into the "ER" or "A," analogy either, which posits which version is offensive: niggER or niggA. I feel that a lot of Black people will tell you they are saying nigga, and the ER is not emphasized in pronunciation, allowing some offense to be removed. So the word in essence has evolved:

niger > nigger > nigga

Still, that does not mean that all Black people are comfortable with the word, which is where the "debate" should end. If someone doesn't want you calling them something they don't like, it should be respected. There is no special privilege gained when Black people use the N-word amongst themselves. So the anger towards some Blacks for wanting to use it, and the challenging from non-Blacks who want to use it as well is silly. The "If they can say it, why can't we" retort is flawed logic. Historically, racists have always used this word. It was invented by the British, enforced by WASP's, and exercised by racist Americans. To feel like you're having your rights denied to you because you can't say a frickin' degrading word that has been used pejoratively is whiny, insolent and pathetic. You'd also be delusional for even feeling like your rights are being slighted when it doesn't begin to describe the stereotypes and stigma that plague Black people.

As much as I detest to the popularity of the N-word, I am not going to police how other Black people choose to use it. I know and see why they do and it's always been used among them. If calling themselves the N-word is takes offense out of the word, they should be allowed that. Let oppressed groups use those terms and redefine them amongst themselves. It's not affecting you and never has.  

In agreement with the Black woman in the video, I also say no to White girls using the N-word. Not just with them either, but also non-Black people and Black people using the word. If you want to say it the N-word, then please take the struggles and stereotypes that come with being a nigga too. I promise the word won't seem so catchy then.

What the Verdict Means to Me and Some Others

The George Zimmerman trial came to a with a not guilty verdict. The high-profile trial watched by the world was finally over, but the result came as a shock even though there were plenty of signs that he would walk. The decision to acquit Zimmerman came as a blow to many, reviving the horrors many parents of color fear when a loved one is murdered. 

I wrote about Trayvon Martin last year. I shared the outrage a lot of people did when his killer was out free, meanwhile his family was burying him. I signed the petition to have Zimmerman arrested, and I supported the activists and the parents of Trayvon. But just a few days ago I spoke with my father about the trial, and he said to me "he's not going to jail." As the trial progressed, I shared the same sentiments. Even though I knew this, for some reason I still had a bit of hope that justice would be served to Trayvon. As I listened to the verdict come in that night, I found myself nervous and reawakened when the verdict was read. I changed the channel and tried to occupy my mind with something else.

What happens now, based off the reaction to the verdict, is a continuance of distrust between a lot of people of color (Blacks in particular) and the justice system. 

When the racial makeup of the jury was revealed, some felt immediately that Zimmerman would walk—five White women and one self-identified 'Hispanic' (which can be any race) woman would make the final decision of this case. The jury of all women was unusual to some, but there was some hope that these women, five of whom are mothers, would somehow resonate with grief Trayvon's parents. But that was not the case. In acquitting Zimmerman of all charges, the jury believed Zimmerman's self-defense claim and believed Trayvon Martin's death to be justifiable. With the evidence provided to them, this is the decision they came to. But the decision could have been many things. 

Much could be blamed. Did the prosecution fail to show ill-will given the charges they filed against Zimmerman? The real problem is we only got to hear one side of the story. Zimmerman was bruised and Trayvon is dead. It's a tragic end for both, and they're the only ones who know what really happened that night.

The issue now is the shifty Stand Your Ground Law in Florida and other variations of it in other states. It also means possible death for young men presumed suspicious, which also means profiler's have weight. While it's not a crime to profile someone based off a preconceived notion you hold, sometimes there is punishment if your profiling leads you to attacking or approaching someone in a hostile way because who they are—it's called a hate crime. Racial profiling has been a practice since the abolition of slavery.

The case also revived the calls to free Marissa Alexander, who was prosecuted by the same law for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband who admitted to domestic violence. She was sentenced to 20 years. But this is same law that allowed Zimmerman to go a free man. What does this law mean, and will there be more to come?

The law will be up for debate again when Jordan Davis' killer starts trial in Jacksonville, FL. He was another teen that was killed by a man who fired shots at a car because he didn't like their music. In that scenario, the shooter was arrested immediately. A stark difference in what happened with Zimmerman the weeks after Trayvon's death. In regards to statistics, while one may believe race is irrelevant in this case, please take a long and hard look at this graph and conclude if there's a disproportionate number of justifiable crimes as pertaining to race.

Wear Sunscreen for this Summer

Image courtesy of bulldogza / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

May is Melanoma and Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention month. Although I have a dark skin complexion, and people with darker skin don't commonly get skin cancer at high rates, the likelihood is still there and regardless, anyone can be diagnosed with skin cancer. And it was only recently I learned all of this.

Melanoma is the most dangerous skin cancer that exists, and thousands of people die from it every year. Health professionals say the best way to prevent melanoma is to stay out of the sun when you can and wear sunscreen, particularly ones that are labeled broad spectrum, which specially protects against UVA and UVB rays. This was brand new to me, because I never really put much thought into protecting my skin from the sun. During the summer, I'm always out in the sun and I never thought once about putting my skin in danger, and I've never gotten a sunburn. I just took in the sun for as long as I was out in it—no protection.

But this coming summer I'll be traveling a lot, and now that I'm aware of the risks, I'll need to get some sunscreen.

I bought my first sunscreen last year and it was in the form of a moisturizer. It was Ambi's facial moisturizer, and I didn't even know it was also a sunscreen until I saw the description one day. It had a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 (recommended for dark skin) and moisturizes your skin. Although it effectively works for what it says it does (and smells amazing too), I'm careful with it around my eyes, and that's the only downside with that product for me. I would still recommend it for anyone to use however. It's not sticky like I've heard other sunscreens are, and it's very light. But unless you'll be wearing long-sleeved tops, you'll need a higher SPF product.

Someone recommended that I use Aveeno's sunscreens which I look forward to buying. I use a lot of Aveeno products for my skin already, so I'm hopeful I like their sunscreen. But I researched several other sunscreens from various brands, and there is lots to choose from. Lots!

Here are some quick tips for sunscreen shopping: (1) figure out how easily you sunburn (2) how long you may be in the sun (3) what SPF you'll need (4) what it protects against (e.g. UVA/UVB) and lastly the brand. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation if you sunburn after 20 minutes in the sun without the use of sunscreen, wearing an SPF 15 will protect you from sun exposure 15x's longer, or for 5 hours. The lighter your skin, the higher the SPF you're recommended to wear. So don't neglect to wear it.

Protect your skin this summer! 

Read more about Melanoma and prevention tips.

Show Cancelled; Review

Meagan Good in Deception

One of my favorite new shows of 2013 will not be coming back later this year, and I was really looking forward to the second season especially since fans of the show got slighted for a shorter season. The show I'm talking about is NBC's Deception.

I was interested in the show after reading the synopsis, because I've been trying to get into some new shows, and I do like a good cop-mystery drama. Though, I was also skeptical of the show because I felt it wouldn't capture or keep my interest. The pilot episode was OK, and I wasn't sure if a show would be able to carry on with a storyline of an undercover cop finding out who killed her socialite best friend. But I watched anyway. Slowly, but surely the show picked up, and I was slightly hooked. We got closer and closer to finding out who killed the victim and it was revealed in the finale, but as usual we were left with a major cliffhanger, with even more questions. The cancellation now means we may never know what route the show would've went upon the discovery of the killer.
 
Part of the reason why I peaked an interest in this show was due to my excitement that another major television network had a show with a woman of color as lead. Up until Kerry Washington debuted as Olivia Pope on ABC's Scandal, there weren't any prime-time shows with women of color (specifically Black) as the lead character. It also may have been Scandal's success that led NBC to cast Meagan Good as the lead for their show; the two shows were compared heavily even though they had completely different plots.

But unlike Kerry Washington, Meagan Good has been somewhat limited in her acting roles. And while I wasn't so crazy about Meagan's acting on the show, I'm glad Deception gave her the opportunity to show viewers that she can take on versatile roles. I've watched plenty of films starring her, and she usually plays some sexy girlfriend.

I'm not sure why they decided to cancel the show, but I don't believe it was the low ratings. NBC's Hannibal, which premiered in the same timeslot, with more competition, had even lower ratings, but the show was renewed for a second season. The writing of that show however was much better.

In summary of the show, it's about Joanna Locasto (Meagan Good), a young officer from San Francisco, who is guilted into going undercover for the murder investigation of her childhood friend Vivian Bowers. Joanna's old boyfriend Will Moreno (Laz Alonso) comes to her with the offer—we learn he is now an FBI agent and they broke up due to his workaholic ambitions. Vivian has just been found murdered in a New York motel room. Her family, the Bowers are very wealthy and Joanna used to live with them, because her mother was once a maid for the family. Will feels like Joanna's closeness to the family will help them get inside information, but Joanna has been estranged from the Vivian and the family for 15 years. The first episode was not a very good pilot, and from its wrap-up it seemed like the questions could've been answered up into a few episodes.
 
We follow Joanna on this investigation, which also proves to be a personal and emotional journey for her. As she attempts to gain the trust of the Bowers, she's also confronted with her feelings for her first love Julian Bowers, the middle son and playboy of the family. In flashbacks we learn they were a hot and heavy as a teen couple. Joanna and Will also rekindle their relationship, which quickly becomes a conflict of interest and hinders their investigation. Their relationship becomes an annoyance as well due to Will's character.
 
The best part of the show is not the two leads though, and I'm no TV show expert, but I'm sure that's bad. Meagan Good's acting is nothing to praise, and Laz Alonzo's character is just unlikable and horrible.
 
The saving grace of the show is Victor Garber, who plays Robert Bowers, the patriarch of the family. The self-proclaimed 'family man' is what's keeping the Bowers clan from falling apart, and is as determined as you'd expect a family leader and CEO to be. His character is more than what meets the eye. The eldest Bowers son Edward (Tate Donovan), is another interesting character. He progresses to be the best character on the show. Both characters are not who they seem to be from the start, and you'll probably be rooting hard for one of them near the end.
 
Overall, I liked the show. My main criticism was really the writing. I felt that in the beginning, writers attempted to make the plot seem overly mysterious, but it became suffocating. Throughout the show there's this recurring theme of mystery that the viewer won't try to care about anymore.  Some of the minor characters constantly gave hinting warnings that didn't prove to be much. Then suddenly, it abruptly stopped and makes you wonder what was the purpose of it at all.

The pacing of Deception is slow, but if you're patient give it a try.

FDA's age limit for Plan B: Not a Huge Victory

image courtesy: adamr

Late last month the FDA decreased the age limit for the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B One-Step. The pill a.k.a the morning after pill, was restricted for the use of adult women, including women who were aged 17 years old with prescription.

The judge who had appealed the FDA's previous restriction wanted the pill to be made available over-the-counter to women of all ages, but the FDA brought down the age limit to 15, while making it available without a prescription. But there are still restrictions. Girls who want to purchase the drug will have to show proof of age, and other contraceptive pills and generics will still be restricted to women of legal age. So while this new milestone is historic, it still continues to generate discussion about women's reproductive rights and their choices, as well as parental responsibility.

It's a victory for some, but for many women, specifically poor women who are disproportionately women of color, the access to this drug won't be easily obtainable when you consider the price and it is expensive. Availability doesn't always mean affordability. What's the likelihood that majority of the Plan-B sales will be easily accessible and bought by women and girls of a certain income bracket?

A sexually-active 15 year old from an upper-middle class American family, with an allowance, will be more likely to obtain birth control, compared to a sexually-active 15 year old from a poor American family, whose parents can barely afford adequate allowance.

Class warfare strikes again, excluding a large percentage of the targeted demographic. So is it truly a victory for women?