Posted something similar in another thread, but being "angry" 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 she's 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 she's an abusive boss, that's 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 "having a temper".
The article referenced is here: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/dianne-morales-nyc-mayoral-campaign-implosion.html
I'm 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 individual's problems - can have the exact opposite effect of decreasing the use of such tropes, instead platforming them. The "angry black woman" trope will not die if it continues to be pointed out whenever a black woman is actually having anger problems, particularly in cases where she's the employer and boss over others and many of the negative outcomes appear to be related: pre-vetting to get "friendly" 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 she's 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 we're 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 you'll 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 "having a temper" because they raise their voice is tone policing, even if it wasn't 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? You're also completely writing off the possibility that she actually is being held to a different standard by Barkan's sources because of her race. Would they have judged her loud voice to be her losing her temper if she was white? We don't know, and we shouldn't just assume not.
By all means, yes, call somebody out for being an abusive boss. That a) isn't a racist trope and b) is actually a problem. If the sources said "she was abusive towards me/my coworkers" then that's 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 don't know.
Unless the final paragraph contradicts "Posted something similar in another thread, but being “angry” is a genuine racist trope used against black women and Ross should have stayed away from that", 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 it's a somewhat rare trope that people are not fully aware of and it's being brought up in a context that's 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 shouldn't 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. It's also the opposite of solidarity in this situation - the workers have a very real complaint, here.
I don't understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that it's right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. That's 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 you're 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 "has a temper"?
I don’t understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that it’s right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. That’s 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 you’re 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 “has a temper”?
That didn't happen. The journalist didn't 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.
My mistake, I misread the tweets. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm more conflicted now- I do wish Barkan had emphasised the abusive rather than angry aspect a little more, but I'm not sure this really warrants criticism, and I agree that the replying tweet was using this as deflection.
Posted something similar in another thread, but being "angry" 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 she's 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 she's an abusive boss, that's 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 "having a temper".
The article referenced is here: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/dianne-morales-nyc-mayoral-campaign-implosion.html
I'm 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 individual's problems - can have the exact opposite effect of decreasing the use of such tropes, instead platforming them. The "angry black woman" trope will not die if it continues to be pointed out whenever a black woman is actually having anger problems, particularly in cases where she's the employer and boss over others and many of the negative outcomes appear to be related: pre-vetting to get "friendly" 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 she's 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 we're 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 you'll 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 "having a temper" because they raise their voice is tone policing, even if it wasn't 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? You're also completely writing off the possibility that she actually is being held to a different standard by Barkan's sources because of her race. Would they have judged her loud voice to be her losing her temper if she was white? We don't know, and we shouldn't just assume not.
By all means, yes, call somebody out for being an abusive boss. That a) isn't a racist trope and b) is actually a problem. If the sources said "she was abusive towards me/my coworkers" then that's 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 don't know.
Unless the final paragraph contradicts "Posted something similar in another thread, but being “angry” is a genuine racist trope used against black women and Ross should have stayed away from that", 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 it's a somewhat rare trope that people are not fully aware of and it's being brought up in a context that's 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 shouldn't 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. It's also the opposite of solidarity in this situation - the workers have a very real complaint, here.
I don't understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that it's right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. That's 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 you're 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 "has a temper"?
Her workers literally said she had anger problems and gave those as examples. The journalist in question is reporting what they said.
That didn't happen. The journalist didn't 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.
My mistake, I misread the tweets. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm more conflicted now- I do wish Barkan had emphasised the abusive rather than angry aspect a little more, but I'm not sure this really warrants criticism, and I agree that the replying tweet was using this as deflection.
Hey it's easy to do. Among other things, Twitter's layout is just ridiculous.
I agree completely that care should be taken around tropes.