Should we or should we not “say gay?” 

The issue is: queer representation in elementary curricular media. How does “Queer representation” differ from sex ed? Is sex different from sexuality? What are the roles of the home v school in conversation of sex and sexuality at the elementary age?

Answers to these questions depend on religion, definitions, trust in our education system, opinions on youth development and desire for control. While the experts on this topic are parents, youth educators, and the Queer community at large, the discussion falls within the walls of political institutions and is the fuel of outrage in young adults protesting policy decisions on the issue. All are stakeholders in this discussion. Invisibilized stakeholders are Queer youth living in the state passing policy to eliminate queer representation from extracurricular media. In particular, trans youth are excluded from the discussion and invisibilized by the umbrella term “gay.” Teachers are other invisibilized stakeholders. The conversation is dominated by parents and policymakers, while the actual material impact falls on youth and educators. For this discussion, I would organize a group of students from my high school in Fayetteville, Arkansas. FHS is an extremely large public high school, so it won’t be hard to organize a concise yet diverse group of students from organizations such as Model UN, Debate, “Dog Crew,” Q&A, and “Ambassadors.” It would be great to have one representative from each extracurricular organization. We will also include faculty and parents who are interested in participating. I choose high school students because while they are not in elementary school, there is still a feeling of connection to your elementary years before you graduate high school. Simultaneously, they are at an age of maturity which permits them to have difficult, “adult” conversations.

Potential Perspectives from participants include:

  • Queer representation is anti-christian; indoctrination
  • Queer representation is sexual; elementary age is pre-mature to sexual exposure
  • Elementary teachers aren’t equipped to discuss matters of sex or sexuality with students; (ultimately, this perspective reinforces heteropatriarchy as teachers will continue to represent heterosexual relationships in their teaching)
  • Queer representation is not sex; sexuality and sex are different; representation should be visible
  • Queer representation incites ideas of sex; should be discussed along with consent and autonomy

I have identified many potential perspectives on the topic; however, there are two critical opposing sides: those who want Queer representation in elementary education and those who oppose it. Those in favor of Queer representation are predominantly Queer people and allies along with institutional democrats who will do anything to oppose republicans. Those in opposition to queer representation have varying reasons for doing so; this array of opinions will need to be unpacked in order to reach a greater understanding of the whole problem. This process will be tedious and supports having the three broad, interlocking questions noted above. It is important to have those most frequently unheard speak first in this conversation. Beginning with question one and moving in a circle, each person will share their perspective on the question and respond to the person(s) before them and any additional previous perspectives that have been shared in a constructive manner which builds mutual connectivity. After every few people, we should take a pause to summarize the sentiments shared so that everyone is on the same page with where the conversation stands. As the conversation moves around the circle, we create a mind map that resembles a circular loom. 

Three important boundaries to set before entering the conversation:

  1. No attacks on personal qualities
  2. No direct attacks to any particular person in the conversation
  3. No generalizations of a particular population of people

Initial agreements and deliberative dispositions:

  1. We hold the safety and intellectual development of children at the forefront of priorities in our public education system (whether or not this is true, this must be the goal when discussing what should and shouldn’t be present in education). 
  2. Every child deserves equal opportunity and access to safety and development (1) no matter their gender, race, class, religion, size and sexuality. 
  3. Each speaker is entitled to their own experience and should not make assumptions about another’s experience without reaching a mutual understanding with that person. 
  4. Each participant should listen generously. That is, each participant should attempt to understand and reconcile where another speaker is coming from in their sentiment. 

Background Knowledge:

The conversation will situate around the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” recently signed into law in Florida. Before the conversation, participants are encouraged to read the bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF.

Two more precursor readings will be opinion pieces from youth: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/12/opinion/florida-dont-say-gay-bill.html

And studies of teachers’ opinions: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089462508/teachers-fear-the-chilling-effect-of-floridas-so-called-dont-say-gay-law

Definitions will be discussed in-group, as our first two questions rely significantly on definitions. As mentioned previously, the discussion format will flow circularly. After each circle, we will go around once more to vocalize responses to others’ statements. If people would like to respond more than once, they can do so, but it is likely that deliberation will dwindle to a particular set of people. We will attempt to spend 30 minutes on each of the three questions above. Participants will know these questions ahead of time and be able to have informed thoughts based on the pre-readings before approaching the discussion. If participants wish not to speak on a particular question, they may pass to the next person. We will pass a talking piece around the circle and respect the speaker with the talking piece by listening generously.

The Performer’s Blight: Second-Wave Feminism in “Nothing New,” Taylor Swift ft. Phoebe Bridgers

While Taylor Swift has been writing feminist inspired lyrics for her entire career, her latest album, Red (Taylor’s Version), features a new record with artist Phoebe Bridgers about the commodification and expiration of women in entertainment. In the opening verse of “Nothing New,” Swift sings “Criticize the way you fly when you’re soarin’ through the sky / Shoots you down and then they sigh, and say / ‘She looks like she’s been through it’.” This piece reminds me of Betty Friedan’s “Feminine Mystique” and classist rhetorics from early second-wave feminism. 

“Nothing New” describes the necessity for women in entertainment to be the hot, new thing. Once you have had your moment of success, entertainment firms and critics begin to tear you down and de-prioritize your work. This forces women to unjustly compete and find self-worth only in their social blade. Similarly, the “housewife’s blight” as discussed by Friedan forces women in the home to only find self worth in their work as home makers. Friedan asks “what kind of woman was she if she did not feel this mysterious fulfillment waxing the kitchen floor?” Similar to women in the entertainment industry, Friedan notes that toxic self-scrutiny is isolating and forces women to constantly compare themselves to the idealized housewife who is perfectly content and (re)productive in her role. 

While many can relate to Swift’s lyrics, her position as a hyper-famous celebrity makes her experience inherently non-universal. This is similar to Friedan’s “housewife” as “woman.” The difference between Friedan and Swift is that Friedan writes to depict the experience of women’s oppression and fails when generalizing “woman” as predominantly white, middle-class “housewife.” In contrast, Swift writes for herself. She does not attempt to project her experience onto others, but rather her fans happen to relate to her lyrics.

Matters of Maintaining Life and Death: Transferring Vital Energy from Reproductive to Productive

In the modern, globalized economy, outsourced labor to the Global South maintains the lives of those producing capital in the Global North. This state of economics is frequently described as neoliberal: the freedom of capital movement and the indoctrination of outsourced labor by marginalized groups. Furthermore, the neoliberal state exacerbates a class of feminized labor with origins in formerly colonized states. The outsourcing of labor to postcolonial states is a critical issue for Kalindi Vora in her book, Life Support: Biocapital and the New History of Outsourced Labor. In a struggle with definitions and mechanisms of labor, Vora succeeds in forming new concepts of reproductive labor with foundational examples from India’s working class. She expands on the inextricable link between reproductive labor and the body–a continuity from colonization to today. Additionally, Vora relies on feminist ethnography and definitions to centralize the identities of Women of Color who are the most frequently biocapitalized reproductive laborers.

Relying on the concepts of ‘biocapital’ and ‘biopower,’ Vora coins a new term, “vital energy,” with respect to the transfer of energies in the maintenance of capitalism. Vora contextualizes biocapital as a colonial-originated practice of indenturing people into subjected labor practices which continues in the modern neoliberal economy through signifying outsourced labor as less equal to the productive work of the colonizing state. In doing so, she uncovers the nuances of feminized, post-colonial and transnational labor relations. Vora employs previous feminist ethnographies and self-administered ethnography on surrogacy, call centers and IT-work in India to analyze reproductive labor outsourcing from the worker’s perspective. Throughout the book, she balances explaining the macro-level systems of power at play between the global North and South and sharing lived experiences captured in ethnography. The introduction and first chapter contextualize biocapital as a colonial-originated practice of indenturing people into subjected labor practices which continues in the modern neoliberal economy through signifying outsourced labor as less equal to the productive work of the colonizing state. Vora defines “vital energy” as the bodily energy used by workers who maintain the life of the productive economic system. 

Dr. Kalindi Vora employs her knowledge of history, social justice and technology to assist her interviews of Indian workers and analysis of previous ethnographies. Vora is a current professor at Yale University and director of the Feminist Research Institute at UC-Davis. She holds a PhD in History of Consciousness from UC-Santa Cruz. Her current research focuses on “historical and contemporary social justice concerns connected to artificial intelligence and robotics technologies, on autoimmunity and patient self-tracking and self-treatment, and on establishing approaches to research in STEM fields informed by feminist, anti-racist and other social justice standpoints” (Yale University). Other works by Vora include Technoprecarious (2020) and Surrogate Humanity: Race, Robots, and the Politics of Technological Futures (2018), co-authored with Dr. Neda Atanasoski.

Vora begins her research in Life Support by analyzing the colonial underpinning of transnational reproductive labor. In the section, “Legacies of Imperial Labor,” Vora situates modern philosophies of labor systems as products of colonialism and slavery. For example, Vora battles with the consensuality of exploitive modern labor. The reproductive labor Vora analyzes is considered “consensual” in the modern economy, but it is the “unequal distribution” of freedoms which have led the transition to consensual labor from a history of enslavement. Vora considers the Assisted Reproductive Technologies Bill (2012) through which the government of India provides inadequate protection to surrogates. She argues that the Indian law leaves surrogates as a location for the free-market economy to commodify and exploit women’s bodies. Ultimately, Vora claims that there is no consideration of the relationship between the “surrogate’s social world and the infant she carries.” The contractual relationship with the commissioning parents which segregates the surrogate from the child instrumentalizes “freedom” to control and make invisible the activities of the surrogate including their sexual, gendered and inherently physical and mental labor. In following chapters, Vora employs previous ethnographic studies in addition to her own on reproductive laborers in India to understand the particularities of biocapital and the inseparability between the corporeal and labor. 

Vora uses call center agents as another example of reproductive labor. In analyzing previous ethnographies of call centers and representations of call center agents in popular media, Vora describes the personification of agents into their “data forms:” a projection of themselves which relies on Western cultural understandings and social cues. The agent is producing affective labor for the company. Vora uses this understanding of call agents to analyze discrepancies between capital accumulation in the US and “cheap service labor” in India. She argues that the vital energy which agents use to produce a personification is exported capital accumulated by economic actors in the US at the benefit of the corporation. In contrast, Indian labor is “cheapened” because the reproductive laborer’s positionality in the global economy does not allow for capital accumulation. Reaping capital from the body of service workers is what Vora describes as the transfer of “vital energy.”

Finally, Vora most prominently employs her own ethnography when analyzing IT-support centers in Bangalore, India. Vora acknowledges that her interviewees represent a higher class of IT workers who have the flexibility of working bi-continentally. Many IT workers in India do not have this luxury, but the experience of those interviewed highlights the discrepancies between the ‘software bro’ in Silicon Valley and Bangalore. Vora discovers that while Silicon Valley is a creative, developmental tech hub, IT workers in Bangalore are prescribed a script for their output. Indian engineers are commonly subjected to strenuous training and testing before being judged on their capability to then be fed to companies to produce pre-existing software. There is no “development” in the Indian sector of IT. One interviewee explains that the Indian vocational education system for engineering produces an environment with little innovative output. Vora claims that this cycle of reproduction “constrains” the worker from innovating solutions that could help their community, but rather produces capital for economic actors in the United States.

Vora’s central contribution is her definition of “vital energy.” This new term helps identify the transnational labor dynamics of the modern, globalized economy. “Vital energy” is able to grasp the impact of reproductive labor on the individual worker. Whereas much research on labor markets focuses on the market as a whole or macro level trade dynamics, Vora focuses on the individual labor as the source of economic reproduction. This transition from the market to the individual is critical to Vora’s analysis and understanding of biopower. Vital energy is a product of biopower which emanates from a capitalist system which indentures outsourced labor for the capital growth of the Global North. This analysis is a critical understanding of the neoliberal economy. 

To reach her understanding, Vora employs previous ethnographies and analysis of media representation. She acknowledges that her interpretation of someone else’s interpretation is twice removed from the source and could be highly flawed. Although she does ground her work in her own interviews with Indian IT workers and surrogates, her analysis of others’ ethnographic research may not be appropriate to pin on the individual worker; however, given the progress Vora makes in her research, I recommend this book to students in Economics, Biology, Computer Science, Sociology and Gender and Sexuality. Vora is successful in centralizing the individual worker and the person-level impacts of outsourced reproductive labor. Her analysis would be beneficial to students entering these fields as they encounter these globalized processes and think about their own positionality in the neoliberal economy.

Following my reading of Life Support, I am compelled to find other invisibilized reproductive labor practices. While Vora focuses on transnational labor, I wonder if there are examples of vital energy in domestic labor practices where the exchange does not rely on the veil of sovereign borders. Additionally, Vora admits that the production of vital energy is nearly impossible to quantify. This recognition reminds me that reproductive and home labor does not count towards our calculation of GDP which disproportionately reduces the contribution of women to our understanding of economic growth. I am curious to find a method for quantifying reproductive labor. While ethnographic research highlights the impact of exploitative labor practices and centralizes the labor of invisibilized workers, I argue that quantification could change public perception of this labor and increase visibility. 

Dr. Vora explaining development of term “Life Support” (See clip 17:00-21:30)

Vora, Kalindi. Life Support: Biocapital and the New History of Outsourced Labor. University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Mocking Ye’s Muse: How Memeifying Voices Threatens the Security of Women

If you’ve been on TikTok in the past week, you’ve most certainly heard the voice of iconic actor, artist, socialite and former dominatrix Julia Fox explaining how her role as director Josh Safdie’s muse for the film “Uncut Gems” compares to her relationship with Kanye West. Fox was recently the guest on Alex Cooper’s podcast, “Call Her Daddy,” where she spilled the tea on her (now former) relationship with Kanye, participation in sex work, and dived into sensitive topics of substance abuse, sexual assault, and her upbringing in the East Village. Immediately after the release of her podcast episode, TikTok was blowing up to the tune of Fox’s unmissable vocal fry and uptalk, pronouncing “uncut gems” as “uncut jaaams.” Countless celebrities, social media influencers and small creators have been using her voiceover in their own videos, poking fun at Fox’s voice and statement. 

Specific clip of the “Call Her Daddy” interview promoted by Spotify’s TikTok Account

As someone who has always been told my voice is too “feminine,” too “gay,” I argue that turning someone’s voice and pronunciation into a punchline is not only hurtful, but typically reinforces sexism and homophobia. Vocal iterations are a critical identifying variable of our gender and ethnocultural perception by others. If you hear a voice without any context, you may subconsciously identify that voice with a specific gender, sexuality, race and class. In our perception of others’ voices, we tend to make large assumptions about their background and experience. These assumptions are the foundation of stereotyped accents. People love critiquing others’ accents. There is a phenomenon, an obsession, with contrasting British and American or Northern and Southern (USA) accents. There exists an eroticization of voices which are unique or different from one’s own. This fascination creates space for judgment and assumptions about one’s character, experience and background. Ultimately, for feminine-presenting folx, voices are hypersexualized and criticized. Fox’s vocal fry is one example of a vocal iteration criticized for its perceived sensuality and ignorance. Vocal fry and uptalk are typically associated with the “valley girl” accent and stereotype made famous by the Kardashian family. Young women predominantly use vocal fry and uptalk either due to environmental vocal influences, cultural choice or due to social inhibitions. Due to the patriarchal structure of society and a history of mansplaining, women often end their statements on a higher register, as if they are asking a question. In our society, women ask the questions and men know the answers. (sidenote: In highschool, I recognized the same occurrence in my voice when my Debate coach suggested that I had a slight British accent. I associate my uptalk with an upbringing of patriarchal mansplaining in my family and community and people questioning my sexuality and masculinity. I always had something to prove and was therefore never sure if I was hitting the nail on the head in my statements.)

Compilation of TikToks using Julia Fox’s voice

While the Kardashians are a brilliant, iconic, hard-working group of women, criticism of their “lack of talent,” perceived lack of intelligence and media-espoused hyper-sexuality have created a harmful association between them and the Valley Girl. Youtuber “marinashutup” explains in her video for Everyday Feminism, “Why do Women Talk Like Kim Kardashian?” that women who use vocal fry are perceived to be less educated, gold diggers or reliant on “daddy’s money” and unprofessional. This vocal stereotype has harmful implications for feminine-presenting folx. According to the same video, a study by Duke University found that employers are 86% more likely to hire a feminine-presenting candidate without vocal fry than a candidate with vocal fry. This statistic shows how assumptive people are towards other’s voices. When this level of discrimination exists against predominantly young, white women, the implications of vocal discrimination across racial and class categorizations is likely to be significant. 

Video for Everyday Feminism about vocal fry and uptalk

Turning vocal fry into a meme reinforces the idea that these vocal iterations are nothing more than a joke and that the words they carry are insignificant. The popular focus on Fox’s vocal fry has left her experiences and emotions to be nothing more than a TikTok meme. This suppression of intelligence and valid experience is universal for people with vocal fry and uptalk. As a result, life-threatening incidents of sexual assault which disproportionately threaten women go unbelieved. Additionally, knowing that they are unlikely to be believed, people with vocal fry and uptalk are discouraged from reporting violence against them. Fox speaks about this experience in “Call Her Daddy.” After coming out that a former romantic and business partner had sexually assault her at his nightclub, many of her friends and those in her community of the Lower East side did not believe her. She remembers being called “dramatic,” a typical stereotype of the Valley Girl vocal fry. Fox recounts the second time she was assaulted, but still today has not identified her attacker. She blames her experience the first time with her inability to come out after the second. This is a blatant example of how women are so often discouraged from reporting sexual violence. It is empowering that she was able to defend herself the first time, but when her community turned their back on her voice, she was silenced.

“Call Her Daddy: Julia Fox [VIDEO]” exclusively on Spotify (Video may require Spotify Premium)