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.
I donât understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that itâs right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. Thatâs not the same thing as having a temper. You can have a temper and not be abusive, you can be abusive and not have a temper. Surely if youâre worried about solidarity towards the workers it would be preferable for the emphasis to be on her being abusive towards them, rather than hiding that behind the much vaguer âhas a temperâ?
I donât understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that itâs right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. Thatâs not the same thing as having a temper. You can have a temper and not be abusive, you can be abusive and not have a temper.
Her workers literally said she had anger problems and gave those as examples. The journalist in question is reporting what they said.
Surely if youâre worried about solidarity towards the workers it would be preferable for the emphasis to be on her being abusive towards them, rather than hiding that behind the much vaguer âhas a temperâ?
That didnât happen. The journalist didnât say any of that in their initial tweet, it was just part of the article alongside those examples. Instead, this was brought up in an antagonistic reply that cherry-picked out that quote to make a very similar point to you, but in a clearly cynical fashion just like Morales does. When the journalist and others did tweet about it, it was in response to that.
