Who is in the limelight

    Garza describes in her article how the beginning of the #BlackLivesMatter slogan became a media sensation. What is sad, however, is that Garza’s creation of this hashtag, with her two sisters, was twisted and distorted by the media and those taking their slogan and using it to represent something else. Garza discusses how in distorting the name and taking out “Black” contributes to the erasing and under-representation of black lives. Many people take offense to this slogan because they see it as saying other lives don’t matter. This blatantly false presumption of the slogan is perhaps contributed to the fact that people don’t try and understand the origin and importance behind the meaning. This takes away what Garza and her sisters wanted to call attention to in the first place. Not only this, but queer black women were marginalized within the Black Lives Matter movement.

“It is an acknowledgement Black poverty and genocide is state violence.” In this statement and through her slogan, Garza is pointing out the inequalities that black people face, “not ALL people”. It is ok that this is a specific title because the injustices that black people face are different than the injustices faced by any other group. To me, this is the most important distinction in the article because the Black Lives Matter movement is not saying black lives are valued over any other life, but that they are fighting in solidarity with all oppressed people. Garza wants Black Lives Matter to be recognized as something good for everyone. We have seen these desires come to fruition through the positive backlash with other oppressed groups taking similar tactics as those in Black Lives Matter. Garza also discusses the importance of recognizing the history, background, and roots of a movement. I think this demand for acknowledgment is very important. This article has made me more aware and conscientious of my own background.

I found Douglas’s article to be similar to the ideas expressed in Gaga feminism. Just as Halberstam uses gaga as a symbol of the new era feminism, so too did Douglas use the iconic Spice girls as a symbol for feminism during that era. However, the problem with using pop-culture icons as feminist symbols is that these icons will not always be known or recognized. Not only this, but feminism is a product of its time and constantly changing, so the feminist desires and ideals during the Spice girls’ era is very different from feminism today. This being said, I do think assigning these icons as symbols of feminism can have a very positive effect on the youth. Often times, these icons and celebrities are the people that children look up to and learn from, which is why I feel it is so prominent to promote feminist groups and people in the media. Another part of Douglas’s article which I found interesting was when she describes how shocking it was during the mid-late 2000’s that women were running for president, becoming C.E.Os. and attorneys. If I were Halberstam I would question as to why these things are shocking to people during this time. Douglas remarks that although women had gained greater positions in the workforce during that time period, the most popular jobs for women were still those of secretaries, elementary teachers, cashiers, etc. 

Douglas lays out an interesting concept that I had never thought about before: that advertisements convince women they have achieved so much—as displayed especially through TV shows and movies—even though in reality they haven’t. This distortion by the media of real experience vs. advertised experience is similar to Garza’s article in that the Black Lives Matter slogan too was distorted by the media.

-Jane B