Comments on: Wait, Is That Art?

By: AmberC

AmberC — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:53:06 +0000

The gender issue is there, granted. But his piece was to highlight that white women are less marginalized than black men and therefore can be used as a way to move up in society. Black (heterosexual) men do not use white men in this way, nor would a black (heterosexual) woman use a white woman. Were she to have the shoulders for it, though a black woman could wear a white man in the same manner.

By: Kris

Kris — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 01:09:39 +0000

I read this just after reading the opening arguments in the Michael Dunn “Stand your Ground” case in Florida. Both Dunn and Zhukova objectified blacks. One as furniture, the other as garbage. They both make me feel pain that so many people think this ok, that no harm is done. But the damage is substantial, and they just don’t see it. And probably never will.

By: Sarah Weissman

Sarah Weissman — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:20:24 +0000

Yes – my 2013 lesson was that CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. But while Hill’s comment on race is fascinating, there’s a problem with gender. Because, a black man and white woman are still both marginalized people. I would’ve preferred to see him wearing a white man, or a black woman wearing a white woman.

By: CommunityAmber

CommunityAmber — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:18:08 +0000

Black women as furniture; white women as scarves … can (literal) objectification ever serve a purpose? http://t.co/d8LJOArmdl @blackfems