Posted something similar in another thread, but being âangryâ is a genuine racist trope used against black women and Ross should have stayed away from that, especially given it seems to be based on some pretty weak claims about her speaking loudly when reprimanding people. If sheâs a neolib shill, and uses woke language to shield herself from criticism, drag her for that.
EDIT: To be clear, if the claim is that sheâs an abusive boss, thatâs another matter. But the screenshot in https://hexbear.net/post/126033 included somebody tone policing her about her tweets as some kind of own, which was only possible because of the original framing of it being her âhaving a temperâ.
The article referenced is here: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/dianne-morales-nyc-mayoral-campaign-implosion.html
Iâm not clear on why Morales should be given a pass on multiple accusations of having anger issues. Being hyper-aware of racist tropes and going out of your way to avoid them - even when they describe an individualâs problems - can have the exact opposite effect of decreasing the use of such tropes, instead platforming them. The âangry black womanâ trope will not die if it continues to be pointed out whenever a black woman is actually having anger problems, particularly in cases where sheâs the employer and boss over others and many of the negative outcomes appear to be related: pre-vetting to get âfriendlyâ journalists, public berating, hearing berating through doors, and seemingly knee-jerk union-busting.
This is also particularly salient given how frequently and cynically Morales has used IDpol as a shield, whether it was too defend against people learning that she paid a bribe, that sheâs a charter school ghoul, or getting criticized from the left on Twitter.
Anger problems in management are a problem even if management is BIPOC and we should never shy away from excising it because weâre familiar with racist tropes. It will hurt those subjected to their capriciousness, alienate those who reasonably sympathize with those hurt, and will actually forward that racist trope when the tropiness is not particularly relevant, since youâll have to bring it up and explain it in a context where its applicability is dubious.
I think my last paragraph covers this? Talking about somebody âhaving a temperâ because they raise their voice is tone policing, even if it wasnât in this case also a racist trope. How many times did we hear the same thing about Corbyn or Sanders being shouty or too angry? Youâre also completely writing off the possibility that she actually is being held to a different standard by Barkanâs sources because of her race. Would they have judged her loud voice to be her losing her temper if she was white? We donât know, and we shouldnât just assume not.
By all means, yes, call somebody out for being an abusive boss. That a) isnât a racist trope and b) is actually a problem. If the sources said âshe was abusive towards me/my coworkersâ then thatâs important, newsworthy, and far less likely to be the product of biased perceptions about black women. Did they say that? Did they think that? We donât know.
Unless the final paragraph contradicts âPosted something similar in another thread, but being âangryâ is a genuine racist trope used against black women and Ross should have stayed away from thatâ, then we have a disagreement not covered in it.
I detailed multiple reasons that this is a terrible strategy that will frequently end up amplifying racist tropes. This will particularly happen when itâs a somewhat rare trope that people are not fully aware of and itâs being brought up in a context thatâs a bit of a stretch, reflecting the awareness of the person pointing out the trope more than anything else. This is, very literally, a woman identifying as black who is multiply alleged to have inappropriate angry outbursts in the workplace.
Tiptoeing around that so much that you tell others it shouldnât even be mentioned will only further the purposes of extremely cynical IDpol, exactly the kind Morales is employing in this post. It covers for malice and harm. Itâs also the opposite of solidarity in this situation - the workers have a very real complaint, here.
