I probably don’t need to recap, but just in case you hadn’t heard for some reason, audio recordings of NBA Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling going on a racist tangent leaked in late April. The league took near-immediate action, placing an indefinite, broad-reaching ban on Sterling from NBA-affiliated activities, in addition to a 2.5 million-dollar fine. League Commissioner Adam Silver declared he’d insist that the Board of Governors force a sale of the Clippers. The general public was appalled by Sterling’s statements, but then, a funny thing happened on the way to the game. The media had a peculiar fascination with V. Stiviano, the woman in which Sterling was having his salacious conversation with. He was chastising her for making it apparent that she associates with black people by taking pictures with sports legend Magic Johnson (she herself is black and Mexican). Just as surprising as Sterling’s remarks was Stiviano’s fairly composed-and almost apologetic-tone on the tape. I personally was taken aback by this and found it sad and self-disrespecting that a person of color would surround themselves with someone so racist for any reason, but that wasn’t the primary reaction to her demeanor by the press, nor was there sympathy or concern that Sterling may be verbally abusing or controlling someone in his circle. The interpretation of her composure was instead that she was the one who leaked the tape. I never wondered who released the recording or why, because, who cared? The bigotry of a person in power in an organization full of African-Americans was exposed. Shouldn’t we be applauding the individual(s) who let the proverbial cat out of the bag (or at least be glad that they did it)? Apparently not.

Without any confirmation that Stiviano was behind the tape’s disclosure (not that it actually mattered), she was stalked by the paparazzi and vilified. Dug-up information on her background revealed that she had plastic surgery, a criminal record (which included arrests for petty theft and driving under the influence), several aliases and that Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, was suing Stiviano for the return of property and expensive vehicles purchased for her by Donald. The court documents also detailed that Rochelle was accusing her of being a seducer of wealthy older men (there is almost a 50-year age difference between Stiviano and Donald). From this it was deduced that Stiviano was a scorned snake of a mistress who sought out to record Sterling and sell the damning audio for a quick buck and maybe 15 minutes of fame. Even if this assumption is true to any or all extent, again, who cares? Does it change the fact that Sterling made those comments and is a bigot? I saw one news panel where the entire broadcast of the story was just about Stiviano and the hosts angrily theorized about her “motives.” Aren’t we mad at the racist or nah? Isn’t he the true villain here?

Stiviano began to take interviews and tell her side of the story. One would think the primary questions would be to establish if Sterling had a pattern of discrimination and hate speech, the details of the conversation in mind and what Stiviano may have endured while around him, but it was all about the nature of her relationship with the embattled team-owner. A relationship that, despite Sterling frequently appearing with her at events and games, no one examined, detected or inquired about. No one seemed to notice or care that he possibly had a mistress before. In one of the more disgusting and poor instances of journalism I’ve ever seen, “Entertainment Tonight” correspondent Brooke Anderson repeatedly asked Stiviano if she had sexual relations with Sterling (episode airing on 5/21/14), making sarcastic facial expressions, comments and groans each time Stiviano denied, even saying she didn’t believe Stiviano. When Stiviano became (understandably) perturbed, Anderson accused her of being “combative” and “defensive.” Afterwards, while at the ET panel table, Anderson and the other hosts dissected paparazzi footage of Stiviano, labeling her as attention-seeking for wearing a visor to cover her face from cameras and flaunting herself when she wasn’t wearing head gear. When she asserts herself under Anderson’s berating and aggressive interviewing, she’s “combative,” but her polite greeting and compliments pre-interview were to “butter [Anderson] up.” I directly tweeted Anderson: “How dare you call V. combative when you berated her and continued to repeat questions because you didn’t get the answer you wanted. I thought interviews were to get a person’s perspective, not convince a journalist of their truth.”

Somehow, it’s been more important to discern whether or not V. Stiviano is a “slut” that outed a man for gain, versus the bigger story from whence she came. We claim that Sterling’s mindset is deplorable, yet, we’ve sought to punish and scrutinize the person we believe to have brought it to light. A sin is a sin and a wrong is a wrong, but the media’s irrelevant and unbalanced focus on Stiviano would imply that possibly being a mistress and possibly outing a man is worse than being a racist. Why is this happening? It’s because of sexism. 1) Regardless of gender, infidelity is frowned upon. However, because promiscuity is a more acceptable and expected behavior for men than women, “the other woman” or a woman who cheats is often more heavily ostracized (and for a longer period) than a male in the same position. Indicia of this is how the masculine forms of the word “mistress” (ex. lover, paramour, kept man) are either lesser-known or don’t withhold the same level of insult. Furthermore, there are multiple slurs to call promiscuous women (ex. slut, skank, whore, hoe, tramp, etc.), but hardly any for men. In effect, these words are so closely tied to women, that “man” is used as a pre-fix to apply it to a male (ex. man-whore). 2) Women who challenge or disrupt the gender-hierarchy of control (women are to be in a subordinate role when amongst men) are generally viewed as an enemy of values and/or men. Stiviano recording an incriminating conversation that ultimately took a man out of his station of power makes her deserving of retribution.

Even after giving a far from humble and remorseful interview with Anderson Cooper, Donald Sterling will likely spend the last of his years rather comfortable and manage to get back into business-life. Meanwhile, V. Stiviano will probably struggle to evade her now destroyed image for at least a decade because of a sexist witch-hunt to shield a xenophobe. Sexism at its best. 

I've always had long, thick hair. As far as I can remember, washing and styling my hair was a time-consuming task for my mother and painful for my tender scalp. I dreaded the process of getting my hair washed and, when I got older, pressed. I also hated having the endless array of greases, oils, sprays, gels and other products weigh down and gunk up my tresses to achieve the simplest of looks. 

When I turned 14, I got my first chemical relaxer (for those who don't know, it's a product to straighten hair). Although I had to get a touch-up every 6-8 weeks, it seemed to make my hair life simpler. I could pretty much do what I wanted, when I wanted with my hair from day to day. I’m generally a low-maintenance type of girl, so relaxers fit my "comb it and go" life. Within the last year or so, I've had issues with extremely dry scalp, dandruff and breakage. It became uncomfortable to have relaxer crème anywhere near my scalp: tense burning sensations, scabbing, soreness. It was time to explore other options. 

I decided to join the ever-growing legion of African-American women "going natural" (either wearing their natural texture or straightening their hair without chemicals). I started my "natural" life continuing to have my hair straightened; this time, my stylist was using just a flat iron and humidity blocker product (humidity and moisture can cause frizz; with a relaxer, reversion isn't much of a problem). Given it was summer and my home AC was broken, keeping the frizz away became nearly impossible. A week after visiting the salon, most of my hair was straight, but my roots and nape were frizzy and hard to comb through. As I began to ask around for tips on how to remain as laid as I was with a relaxer, I learned my choice to be relaxer-less was apparently a socio-political one. Before giving me any real suggestions and answering my inquiry, some friends went on tangents about how I needed to accept what "God gave me" and stop "fearing" the texture I was born with, insisting that I wear my hair curly and implying there was no way to keep my hair straight (not true). One friend went so far as to say I had a self-hatred problem because I liked my hair straight. You see, to give context for their remarks, black Americans have an ugly history with hair and beauty measures. 

As critical commentary from within the black community regarding the demeanor, speech and physical appearance of Rachel Jeantel, a witness in the George Zimmerman murder trial, continue to roll in, “why are blacks divided and always pick on each other?” keeps being asked. The issue of “in-fighting” isn’t exclusive to blacks or African-Americans. It’s an element seen in all socially oppressed groups or communities that are fiercely discriminated against (ex. women, the poor, racial minorities, and homosexuals). Isolation and prejudice are very powerful tools used by those in dominant social control to keep others separated and suppressed. To illustrate how in-fighting begins among an out-casted group, I’m going to use the example of a school yard: something most people can relate to.

Let’s say at a school of 800 students, 700 are tall, skinny, blonde and middle-class, and 100 are short, stocky, brunette and poor. The 700 are obviously the dominant. The 700 reject the 100 because they look different and think they’re less-than because they cannot afford the same lifestyle. It’s emotionally communicated to the 100 that being short, stocky, brunette and poor are negative traits, and they begin to have low self-esteem and self-resentment. Self-resentment leads them to dislike, bash and identify flaws in their own kind because they represent what they wish they weren’t. Parts of the 100 try to lose weight and dye their hair to become more acceptable to the 700; these 100 are either viewed by their own as traitors or put on a pedal-stool for more closely resembling the 700. Those who are accepted (or tolerated, rather) by the 700 increase their hatred towards the rest of the 100 to remain in the circle. Those 100 who don’t care to be accepted by the 700 embrace who they are, but create standards and expectations as to what 100-ness means. Others who don’t meet the criteria for “real 100-ness” are deemed “not 100-enough” and ostracized. They now don’t fit in anywhere; 700’s hate them for being 100, and some 100’s hate them for not being “100-enough.” The 100’s are now a group of students at odds.

Social classes and categories are not evil within themselves, nor are differences. Excluding and despising others based on differences is what creates problems. For populations on the losing end of social hierarchies, it automatically creates a hostile environment of competition, jealousy, poor self-concept and “in-fighting.” My father once described black people as crabs in a bucket. Crabs crawl over each other, trying to get up the wall and out of the bucket. In the process of going up the wall, they often pull those further along down. Incidentally, they drop too and have to start all over. Even though many African-Americans (and other oppressed groups) are very aware of how centuries of prejudice, injustice and discrimination have affected relations within, it’s hard to undo what’s been psychologically learned; especially when racism is still such an impacting force. We constantly perpetuate the lies and stereotypes we’ve been taught about ourselves to each other and the world. In the case of Rachel Jeantel, we passed on the lesson-lie that dark skin is hideous and made of fun of her looks. On a personal note, through most of grade-school, I was that “100” who didn’t fit in anywhere. White kids either dismissed me or constantly highlighted my race, while black kids measured my “blackness.” I was “white” because I liked pop and rock music and wasn’t raised in the inner-city.

Again, this is a behavior pattern seen in all oppressed populations. One of my friends complained that in her workplace, the women are always secretly gossiping about one another and they try to stunt each other’s success. A higher-level executive admitted to her “They’ll [men] allow only so many spots for women to take charge. If you don’t eliminate your competition, you won’t make it.” Actress Gabrielle Union said in a recent interview that she was a “mean girl” who cut other black actresses down until she realized their “shine” didn’t dim her own, but propelled it. Another friend, who’s Latina, said she doesn’t like to socialize with other Latinos because of their dissension. I then asked “Aren’t you contributing to the separation if you shun them?” Although internal backbiting is frustrating (to say the least), we must not give up on our own and assist the division. As members of socially subordinate, “outsider” communities, to interfere with the effects of discrimination, we must constantly hold each other-and ourselves-accountable. Think before you speak and act. Analyze your biases and train of thought. Don’t believe the stereotypes and don’t live them out. Call those around you out when they say and do divisive things. It’s all easier said than done, but a conscious effort made yields results.

There are many reasons why people get upset when they see those of their ethnicity in relationships with others. Some are prejudice or have issues with interracial dating in general. Others have a problem with those that EXCLUSIVELY date outside of their race. Race-based dating exclusivity communicates to those of your own culture that they’re not good enough for you and that there’s something wrong with them. That’s hurtful. It’s like you’re disavowing your own culture. You might ask “what’s wrong with having a preference?” exclusively dating one race is PASSED a preference. Exclusivity is strict and unwavering.  Exclusivity is “I ONLY date__________ people.”

As a black woman, I’ve come across many black men who only date Caucasian, Asian, or Hispanic women for various reasons such as “I’m not attracted the features of black women,”“black women have bad attitudes” and “I haven’t had good experiences with black women.” When physical features are mentioned, it perplexes me because most people of the same race have similar features. It makes me want to ask “Are you not attracted to yourself then?”  Also, their mothers, sisters and cousins are black women with “those features.” Do they think their family is ugly too?  They came from a black woman and yet, a black woman isn’t suitable enough to date. As for “bad attitudes,” bad apples are on every tree. ANY person of ANY race can have a bad attitude. “Bad experiences” may be the result of not surrounding yourself with quality black women.

Taking another look at exclusivity rationales, statements like “they have bad attitudes” or “I’ve had bad experiences with them” are based on stereotypes and unjust bias. Are you really going to judge an ENTIRE race of people because of a small few? Majority of race-based dating choices link back to stereotypes, unjust bias, prejudice and/or racism. One has to analyze what thoughts or feelings lead to dating preferences and exclusivity based on ethnicity. People usually make preferences because of things they don’t like. I prefer to date someone who enjoys Beyonce` versus hates Beyonce`, because those that are anti-Beyonce` tend to annoy me. So what is it that you don’t like about a certain race that you prefer another? And what is the root of your dislike? Are you sure that it isn’t a stereotype or prejudice?