# data[].attributes.body
Was unjustly killed at the age of 17 for his race

Started uproar of canceling in summer of 2013

# data[].attributes.body
Network of Black people that have transcended the culture to Twitter

The creators of cancel culture (though not as intense)

Are not the problem

# data[].attributes.body
Boycotting and blacklisting was often used

Black Twitter have adopted this action and used it online

It's subsequent success just like in Civil Rights Movement can be observed

# data[].attributes.body
The collective abandonment of something for a cause

Cancel culture does this to people

# data[].attributes.body
Have morphed canceling into a "call them out" mob mentality

Harass and make it unsafe for people who are canceled

Many have taken Black culture and dramatized it

# data[].attributes.body
Politicians and many new networks have made cancel culture political in attempts to silence black people.

Gen Z have contributed to uproar with extreme approach to the concept.

Thoughts about cancel culture are now related to political affiliation.

# data[].attributes.body
The famous are most affected by cancel culture

Their actions are biggest in public sphere

Lives are often heavily if canceled because they make no money

# data[].attributes.body
Before the age of cancel culture, actions could not be held accountable.

Older generations are used to this way of life, and hate cancel culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Space that social media has been exacerbated due to social media

Cannot hide behind intersectionality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Washington Post illustration; Warner Bros./Kobal/Shutterstock; Mauro Pimentel/AFP/Getty Images; Joe Raedle/Getty Images; iStock)
Share Comment Save
One night in 1980 or so, the legendary songwriter Nile Rodgers went on a bad date.

He was out at a club with a group of people, he says, including Eddie Murphy and Rick James. Rodgers was big-time. His band, Chic, had topped the charts with hits such as "I Want Your Love" and "Good Times." But at heart, he was still a humble kid whose parents had struggled with drug addiction and who felt fortunate to have made it as far as he did. So, when his date asked the maître d' to remove people from a table so they could sit there instead, Rodgers bristled.

"She probably felt like she was rolling with Berry Gordy or something," Rodgers, sporting his trademark beret and dreadlocks, told The Washington Post in a recent video interview. "I was just this lucky musician who was doing the job that I loved and got a hit record, and I was in my environment with all my good friends."

Her attempt to use his celebrity to push people around was a dealbreaker. "No, no, no, I don't do that," Rodgers remembered explaining. "I don't play that card."

Sitting at home one night, some time later, he replayed the bad date in his head. Rodgers, who is obsessed with television - he says he keeps it on in every room of his house, 24/7 - came up with some lyrics:
Watchin' the late show I made up my mind, oh A love that is free like a love should be Fallin' behind, oh
No, your love is cancelled

Don't you see you are the one
The song, "Your Love Is Cancelled," which appeared on Chic's 1981 album, "Take It Off," was not a hit. But the metaphor Rodgers had invented - the idea of "canceling" a person for unacceptable behavior, such as a network executive pulling the plug on an unsuccessful TV show - has taken its own journey. Recently it turned up in Central Florida, in the mouth of a 57-year-old White Republican from Ohio.
I couldn't have begun
"All right, who's next?" asked Rep. Jim Jordan. "Who's the cancel culture going to attack next?"

Jordan, sans jacket, hiked up his pants and smiled at the young right-wing activists who had gathered in an Orlando hotel ballroom for the final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference. The congressman scanned the crowd before continuing. "You see last week they tried to cancel Kermit the Frog and Mr. Potato Head? They backed off Mr. Potato Head. I think he told them his preferred pronouns are he/him/his, right?" Jordan said with a smirk.

The theme of the conference was "America Uncanceled." Attendees shelled out between $330 to $7,500 to see Jordan and other pro-Donald Trump politicos vow to protect Americans from the "woke" hordes demanding the removal of statues celebrating white supremacists, among other perceived offenses.

In his speech, Jordan was invoking the specter of "cancel culture" in reference to Disney's decision to add a content warning at the beginning of some episodes of "The Muppet Show" on its streaming service, because the shows depict harmful stereotypes and "mistreatment of people or cultures." (In one episode, country singer Johnny Cash performs with a Confederate flag in the background.) As for Mr. Potato Head, the toymaker Hasbro had announced that it would drop the "Mr." and "Mrs." from its famous potato dolls, prompting a backlash that included some specters of its own. "It's time," wrote one right-wing pundit in response to the Mr. Potato Head news, "for Republican states to secede."

The courtesy titles, a company official explained to Fast Company, were "limiting when it comes to both gender identity and family structure." After seeing the outrage the news had created, however, the company canceled the change.

Trump impeachment attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. on Feb. 12 said a vote to convict former president Donald Trump would permit "cancel culture" in the Senate. (Video: The Washington Post)

Neither the Muppets nor Mr. Potato Head had faced extinction - only modification in light of companies' evolving sense of what customers consider to be respectful and inclusive. But among those who are offended by the notion of being offended by "Mr." or "Mrs." in a doll's name or the presence of a proslavery battle flag on a kids' TV show, "cancel culture" is a new favorite way to describe what's making them upset (way punchier than "political correctness").

"Cancel" and "woke" are the latest terms to originate in Black culture only to be appropriated into the White mainstream and subsequently thrashed to death. Young Black people have used these words for years as sincere calls to consciousness and action, and sometimes as a way to get some jokes off. That White people would lift those terms for their own purposes was predictable, if not inevitable. The commodification of Black slang is practically an American tradition. "One of the biggest exports of American culture," said Renée Blake, a linguistics professor at New York University, "is African American language."

Terms such as "lit" and "bae" and "on fleek" - or, if you're a little older, "fly" and "funky" and "uptight" - have been mined by White people for their proximity to Black cool. The word "cool" itself emerged from Black culture. "I do not know what white Americans would sound like if there had never been any black people in the United States," James Baldwin wrote in 1979, "but they would not sound the way they sound."

With "canceled" and "woke," there's a twist: Not only have these words been appropriated from Black culture, but they have also been weaponized to sneer at the values of many young Black liberals.

"When I hear stuff like 'America Uncanceled,' what does that even mean? What are you talking about? What are you really trying to say?"

Screenwriter and journalist Barry Michael Cooper was reflecting on how "cancel" ended up in Orlando.

"It's really weird, man."

But for Cooper, there's also amusement and pride, considering he was largely responsible for the term entering the American lexicon.

Thirty years ago, he was working on the screenplay for "New Jack City," a film that would become a 1990s Black gangster classic. One of the characters was Nino Brown, a "malignant narcissist" of a Harlem drug boss (played by Wesley Snipes). After sacrificing the life of a child to save his own, Nino finds himself back at his headquarters being castigated by his girlfriend. Suddenly, he grabs her by the head, throws her on a conference table and douses her in champagne.

"Cancel that b----!" he hisses, as a lieutenant collects her from the table and takes her away. "I'll buy another one."

The scene, Cooper says now, is "about Nino's sense of power, and it's about dismissal: I don't need you. I made you, I could break you."

Why did Cooper pick that word, "cancel"? Simple: "Your Love is Cancelled" happened to be coming out of the screenwriter's speakers around the time he was writing the scene. Rodgers's harmless kiss-off to a rude date transformed into a gangster's ruthless desecration of his relationship.

Nino's profane dismissal proved quotable, and it followed "New Jack City" into the wider world. In 2005, rapper 50 Cent quoted the line on his song "Hustler's Ambition." Four years later, Lil Wayne used it on "I'm Single." Variations on the expression jumped to reality TV: "Get away from me - you're canceled," music producer Cisco Rosado tells girlfriend Diamond Strawberry in an episode of VH1's "Love & Hip Hop." ("I was just watching 'New Jack City' the night before," Rosado said later.)

Ultimately, the expression took root in that great incubator of creativity: Black Twitter. And that is where the meaning of "cancel" started to evolve.

Declaring someone or something "canceled" on Twitter was not really an attempt to activate a boycott or run anyone from the public square. Cancellations were more of a personal decision, a way to say we don't really kick it anymore: You stepped out of line, and now I'm done with you. (Think Black fans expressing disgust with Justin Timberlake for dissing Prince.) Saying someone was "canceled" was more like changing the channel - and telling your friends and followers about it - than demanding that the TV execs take the program off the air. The power of cancellation lay with the canceler: How much social capital were they divesting, and how many others would follow suit?

Cancellation notices were "a way to wield power, where we haven't been able to really do it before on a cultural level," Cooper said. "Twitter has allowed us to say, 'We're here, we're not going to be discounted, and if you say anything to try to diminish us, we'll cancel you.' "

The concept of online "call-outs," aimed more at public accountability than low-key channel-changing, really took hold in the mid-2010s, with people pointing out behavior or artistic statements from celebrities they deemed problematic. Sometimes it was for their words, as when Kanye West insisted that slavery was a choice and that Bill Cosby was innocent of the rape charges against him. After decades of sexual abuse allegations against R. Kelly, in 2017, Black fans made a concerted effort to have the singer barred from performing and pressured other artists to cease collaborating with him.

In the wake of #MeToo, the online atmosphere became even more charged as accusations made against abusers were sometimes followed by swift repercussions for the accused. A similar dynamic regarding racism emerged after George Floyd's killing in police custody - a watershed of horror and urgency over systemic abuse followed by a wave of accountability for people and institutions who were called out as being part of the problem.

As call-outs led to greater consequences, some people became nervous about how social media had changed power dynamics in the court of public opinion. "Cancel culture" was the diagnosis, and the term became a catchall defense for those trying to evade public criticism of any kind.

New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) again insisted on March 12 that he would not resign while allegations of his sexual misconduct were being investigated. (Video: Reuters)

Publisher decides to revoke your book deal after you try to intervene in the certification of a presidential election and a mob storms the U.S. Capitol? Cancel culture. Members of your party calling for your resignation after multiple women accuse you of sexual harassment? Also cancel culture. Dr. Seuss Enterprises decides to stop selling certain Dr. Seuss books that contain racist images? "Cancel Culture Comes for Dr. Suess."

"It's just a joke now," said civil rights activist Johnetta Elzie.

"Cancel" is now just another word that White people have taken and run into the ground.

Rodgers wrote "Your Love is Cancelled" in the wake of a different kind of cancellation.

Chic had been a pioneer in disco music, a genre that was associated with the Black, Latino and gay communities. By the end of the 1970s, however, disco was facing a backlash from resentful rock fans. In 1979, the Chicago White Sox collaborated with Steve Dahl, a DJ and anti-disco crusader, to hold "Disco Demolition Night" at Comiskey Park. Fans got discounted tickets for bringing disco records, which would be collected and ceremoniously blown up on the field between games of a doubleheader.

Dahl later said that he was unaware at the time of the importance of disco to marginalized groups and that there was no racist or homophobic intent behind Disco Demolition Night. ("Sometimes a stupid radio promotion is just a stupid radio promotion," he told the Chicago Tribune in 2019.) But, in any case, the event turned out ugly.

The rowdy anti-disco crowd rushed the field and trashed the stadium. Some people had shown up with records by Black artists of other genres, according to Vincent Lawrence, then a teenager, who was working as an usher. "Someone walked up to me [and] said, 'Hey you - disco sucks!' and snapped a 12-inch in half in my face," Lawrence told the Guardian in 2019. "That's when I started feeling like, 'Okay, they're just targeting me because I'm Black.' "

The cancellation of disco was not total, but it hit Chic hard. "We were basically scorched by the whole 'disco sucks' thing in the summer of '79," Rodgers told The Post.

A two-time cancer survivor who works constantly, Rodgers says social media gives him a way to stay in touch with fans. He's the kind of celebrity musician who replies to individual tweets. "If you look on my Twitter feed, it's always the same names popping up, and they become my friends," he said.

One time, Rodgers recalled, someone suggested to him that, if he was such a big deal, then he should be too busy to respond to "anybody and everybody." The woman unfollowed him, he said, but not before introducing him to a phrase he'd never heard before.

She told him he was canceled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The strange journey of 'cancel,' from a Black-culture punchline to a White-grievance watchword

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was born after a bad date in New York. Forty years later, it's haunting hotel ballrooms in Florida.

# data[].attributes.headline
What does Intersectionality have to do with Culture?

# data[].attributes.subject
What does Intersectionality have to do with Culture?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People have challenged each other's views for much of human history. But the internet - particularly social media - has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it's never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray.

The phrase "cancel culture" is said to have originated from a relatively obscure slang term - "cancel," referring to breaking up with someone - used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in film and television and later evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has become a deeply contested idea in the nation's political discourse. There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it's a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn't even exist.

To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share - in their own words - what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Who's heard of 'cancel culture'?

As is often the case when a new term enters the collective lexicon, public awareness of the phrase "cancel culture" varies - sometimes widely - across demographic groups.

Overall, 44% of Americans say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase, including 22% who have heard a great deal, according to the Center's survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. Still, an even larger share (56%) say they've heard nothing or not too much about it, including 38% who have heard nothing at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies about cancel culture.)

Familiarity with the term varies with age. While 64% of adults under 30 say they have heard a great deal or fair amount about cancel culture, that share drops to 46% among those ages 30 to 49 and 34% among those 50 and older.

There are gender and educational differences as well. Men are more likely than women to be familiar with the term, as are those who have a bachelor's or advanced degree when compared with those who have lower levels of formal education.

While discussions around cancel culture can be highly partisan, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are no more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.)

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as most likely to be familiar with the term.

How do Americans define 'cancel culture'?

As part of the survey, respondents who had heard about "cancel culture" were given the chance to explain in their own words what they think the term means.

The most common responses by far centered around accountability. Some 49% of those familiar with the term said it describes actions people take to hold others accountable:

A small share who mentioned accountability in their definitions also discussed how these actions can be misplaced, ineffective or overtly cruel.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech or as history being erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm:

Five other distinct descriptions of the term cancel culture also appeared in Americans' responses: people canceling anyone they disagree with, consequences for those who have been challenged, an attack on traditional American values, a way to call out issues like racism or sexism, or a misrepresentation of people's actions. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways.

There were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents. Some 36% of conservative Republicans who had heard the term described it as actions taken to hold people accountable, compared with roughly half or more of moderate or liberal Republicans (51%), conservative or moderate Democrats (54%) and liberal Democrats (59%).

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to see cancel culture as a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans familiar with the term (26%) described it as censorship, compared with 15% of moderate or liberal Republicans and roughly one-in-ten or fewer Democrats, regardless of ideology. Conservative Republicans aware of the phrase were also more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to define cancel culture as a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or as an attack on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click here to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture.

Given that cancel culture can mean different things to different people, the survey also asked about the more general act of calling out others on social media for posting content that might be considered offensive - and whether this kind of behavior is more likely to hold people accountable or punish those who don't deserve it.

Overall, 58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who don't deserve it. But views differ sharply by party. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans - but just 22% of Democrats - believe this type of action generally punishes people who don't deserve it.

Within each party, there are some modest differences by education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who have a high school diploma or less education (43%) are slightly more likely than Republicans with some college (36%) or at least a bachelor's degree (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is holding people accountable for their actions. The reverse is true among Democrats: Those with a bachelor's degree or more education are somewhat more likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to say calling out others is a form of accountability (78% vs. 70%).

Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those under 50 (73%) as well as those ages 50 and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable for their actions. At the same time, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more likely to punish people who didn't deserve it (58% and 55%, respectively).

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to be either a form of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates.

Some 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a teaching moment that helps people learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. Among those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, a similar share (18%) say it's because people are not taking the context of a person's post or the intentions behind it into account before confronting that person.

In all, five types of arguments most commonly stand out in people's answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful; 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

Are people rushing to judge or trying to be helpful?

The most common area of opposing arguments about calling out other people on social media arises from people's differing perspectives on whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or instead trying to be helpful.

One-in-five Americans who see this type of behavior as a form of accountability point to reasons that relate to how helpful calling out others can be. For example, some explained in an open-ended question that they associate this behavior with moving toward a better society or educating others on their mistakes so they can do better in the future. Conversely, roughly a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can be subjective.

The second most common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others can solve anything: 13% of those who see calling out others as a form of punishment touch on this issue in explaining their opinion, as do 16% who see it as a form of accountability. Some who see calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves nothing and can actually make things worse. Others in this group question whether social media is a viable place for any productive conversations or see these platforms and their culture as inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for what they post or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more important, free speech or creating a comfortable environment online?

Pew Research Center has studied the tension between free speech and feeling safe online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This debate also appears in the context of calling out content on social media. Some 12% of those who see calling people out as punishment explain - in their own words - that they are in favor of free speech on social media. By comparison, 10% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces matter, or that people should be more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or make people uncomfortable.

What's the agenda behind calling out others online?

Another small share of people mention the perceived agenda of those who call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who see calling out others as a form of accountability say it's a way to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or hate, or a way to make people face what they say online head-on by explaining themselves. In all, 8% of Americans who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for their actions voice these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out as a form of punishment, by contrast, say it reflects people canceling anyone they disagree with or forcing their views on others. Some respondents feel people are trying to marginalize White voices and history. Others in this group believe that people who call out others are being disingenuous and doing so in an attempt to make themselves look good. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who see calling out others as punishment.

Should people speak up if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or punishment also involve a small but notable share who debate whether calling others out on social media is the best course of action for someone who finds a particular post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others as punishment say those who find a post offensive should not engage with the post. Instead, they should take a different course of action, such as removing themselves from the situation by ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don't like what that person has to say. However, 4% of those who see calling out others as a form of accountability believe it is imperative to speak up because saying nothing changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans see shades of gray when it comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can be difficult to classify this kind of behavior as a form of either accountability or punishment. They note that there can be great variability from case to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means uniform: Sometimes those who are being called out may respond with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in anger and frustration.

Below, we have gathered a selection of quotes from three open-ended survey questions that address two key topics. Americans who've heard of the term cancel culture were asked to define what it means to them. After answering a closed-ended question about whether calling out others on social media was more likely to hold people accountable for their actions or punish people who didn't deserve it, they were asked to explain why they held this view - that is, they were either asked why they saw it as accountability or why they saw it as punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Emily A. Vogels, Monica Anderson, Margaret Porteus, Chris Baronavski, Sara Atske, Colleen McClain, Brooke Auxier, Andrew Perrin and Meera Ramshankar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. adults explain - in their own words - what they think cancel culture means.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It was named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the club’s first meeting took place. The club’s goal is to promote dialogue between Russian and international intellectual elite, and to make an independent, unbiased…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here at YW Boston, intersectionality is central to the work we do.

We know that everyone reading this has come to follow YW Boston's work from different entry points. Some of us hold women's empowerment close to heart, perhaps seeking a more equitable world for ourselves or our daughters. Some of us have experienced racial discrimination personally, perhaps through generations of our family. Some of us have little experience with social justice, but seek a better understanding of inequity in Greater Boston. All of us seek change in our community, no matter how we became involved.

Despite our shared vision, social equity work can oftentimes feel exclusionary to those who are not familiar with the lingo. Intersectionality, in particular, is a term that many people and organizations assert an importance for, but that others are unclear on. Understanding the terminology used in equity work is a useful tool for people expanding their knowledge on the issues they care about.

If you've ever scratched your head when a friend, colleague, or writer has spoken of intersectionality (or you'd like to deepen your understanding of the theory), this post is for you.

What is it and where does it come from?

Intersectionality, n.

The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage; a theoretical approach based on such a premise. (Oxford Dictionary)

Intersectionality is a framework for conceptualizing a person, group of people, or social problem as affected by a number of discriminations and disadvantages. It takes into account people's overlapping identities and experiences in order to understand the complexity of prejudices they face.

In other words, intersectional theory asserts that people are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression: their race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity markers. Intersectionality recognizes that identity markers (e.g. "woman" and "black") do not exist independently of each other, and that each informs the others, often creating a complex convergence of oppression. For instance, a black man and a white woman make $0.74 and $0.78 to a white man's dollar, respectively. Black women, faced with multiple forms of oppression, only make $0.64. Understanding intersectionality is essential to combatting the interwoven prejudices people face in their daily lives.

Kimberlé Crenshaw, law professor and social theorist, first coined the term intersectionality in her 1989 paper "Demarginalizing The Intersection Of Race And Sex: A Black Feminist Critique Of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory And Antiracist Politics." The theory emerged two decades earlier, however, when black feminists began to speak out about the white, middle-class nature of the mainstream feminist movement. Many black women found it difficult to identify with the issues of the mainstream (white) feminist movement, issues such as the pressure to be a homemaker. Black women, who often had to work in order to keep their family afloat and therefore did not have the luxury of being homemakers, did not feel as though these issues pertained to their experiences. At the same time, many black women experienced sexism while participating in the Civil Rights movement and were often shut out of leadership positions. This intersectional experience of facing racism in the feminist movement and sexism in civil rights encouraged black women to call for a feminist practice that centralized their lived experiences.

The Combahee River Collective, a black feminist lesbian organization, released the Combahee River Collective Statement in 1978 to define and encourage black feminism. In the introduction these women state that "The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. As Black women we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face." They fought not only for representation in both the Civil Rights and feminist movements, but also for recognition as black women, rather than just black or just women.

Crenshaw expanded on the Collective's theory, stating that in order to understand the oppression of black women, it is necessary to look at the intersection of blackness and womanhood. While many who championed intersectionality early on were African American women, the theory has proven necessary to understanding a wide range of difference, including individuals' sexual orientation, age, class, disability, and more.

Nowadays, intersectionality is considered crucial to social equity work. Activists and community organizations are calling for and participating in more dynamic conversations about the differences in experience among people with different overlapping identities. Without an intersectional lens, events and movements that aim to address injustice towards one group may end up perpetuating systems of inequities towards other groups. Intersectionality fully informs YW Boston's work, by encouraging nuanced conversations around inequity in Boston. It enlightens us to health disparities among women of color, provides pathways for our youth leaders to understand identity, and is crucial to the advocacy work we support.

What can I do?

Intersectionality may seem theoretical, but it is meant to be utilized. No matter how or when you have become involved with equity work, it is always possible to more fully integrate intersectionality into your view of these issues.

Is your work toward social equity intersectional? Check out these tips and reflect:

Recognize difference.

Oftentimes, it is easier to believe and to explain to others that "all women feel" a certain way or that "LGBTQ+ people believe" some common understanding, but this does not reflect reality. We must recognize that all unique experiences of identity, and particularly ones that involve multiple overlapping oppressions, are valid.

Do not shy away from recognizing that people experience the world differently based on their overlapping identity markers. Because of the way we have been socialized to continue feeding systems of oppression, we often feel it is rude to formally recognize others' difference. We see this in how people are uncomfortable naming another person's perceived race or asking for someone's preferred pronouns. However, we must recognize these identities as a way to step beyond our assumptions that our experience is common. One way of doing so is when you attend rallies, take a look at the signs that others hold - how do they assert their identity and how does this inform the issues they care most about?

Avoid oversimplified language.

Once we recognize this difference, we can move away from language that seeks to define people by a singular identity. You may have heard after the Women's March that many trans folks and allies felt uncomfortable with the vagina-centric themes of the march. Assuming that all women have vaginas or are defined by their bodies is an oversimplification that erases the experiences of those who exist beyond the gender binary. By avoiding language that assumes our own experiences are baseline, we can open ourselves up to listening to others' points of view.

Analyze the space you occupy.

Becoming comfortable recognizing difference also involves recognizing when that difference is not represented in the spaces you occupy. Diversity of all kinds matter in your workplace, your activism, your community spaces, and more. If you are meeting with a local LGBTQ+ organization, is there representation of LGBTQ+ people of color? You may feel that your workplace is racially and ethnically diverse, but is it accessible to people with disabilities? Take note of the welcoming or distancing practices of the spaces you frequent.

Seek other points of view.

Explore the narratives of those with different interlocking identities than you. This includes surrounding yourself with others with differing interwoven identities, but keep in mind that oftentimes, even when you have a diverse group of people in an activist space, it falls on people to educate others about the oppressions they face. When these people share their experiences, take the opportunity to listen. However, do not expect people with identity markers other than your own to be there or to want to educate others. In your own time, seek out existing intersectional narratives, from your podcasts to your television. If you are unsure about a concept or want to learn more about a specific intersection of identity, Google it! This will help you be better prepared to enter into conversations with others and progress together.

Show up.

Do not expect people who face different systems of oppression than you to rally for causes you care about if you do not rally for theirs. As you hear about issues others face, learn about the work that is currently being done around these topics. Listen and defer to those who live with these intersectional identities each day. As you do, you will likely deepen your understanding of your own identity and the subjects you care about most.

Additional Resources:

Check out this TED talk by Kimberlé Crenshaw (who coined the term "intersectionality").

On your quest for more intersectional viewpoints, check out this list of podcasts.

Listen to women share their thoughts on intersectionality here and here.

To learn more about YW Boston's intersectional work, please sign up for our newsletter:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is intersectionality, and what does it have to do with me?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here at YW Boston, intersectionality is central to the work we do. We know that everyone reading this has come to follow YW Boston's work from different entry points. Some of us hold women's empowerment close to heart, perhaps seeking a more equitable world for ourselves or our daughters.

# data[].attributes.body
Cancel culture in its raw, true form is very beneficial.

It has been warped into something theatrical where no one can say anything.

It has no longer become cancel culture, it is now attack.

Cancel culture only exists in the public sphere, so it's power mainly exists on social media.

Politicians uses cancel culture and how Gen Z uses it to dilute the real work Black people have been doing.

# data[].attributes.body
Cancel culture exposes issues that people who have multiple systems of discrimination.

For example, white feminist were getting exposed in the summer of 2013 for their bigotry and racism even though they were women.

It establishes a level of accountability in the public sphere, but it also means no one is safe from cancel culture's persecution.

# data[].attributes.body
For this example, the Kpop industry will be used because they are the most extreme in the modern day.

Once a Kpop idol is exposed for whatever reason, they must immediately publicly apologize and take a hiatus.

After a few months, they resurface and either the Netizens forgive them, or their return is never the same.

Reasons Kpop idols have been canceled:

Ethic reasons

Illegal activity

Dating scandal

Online hate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Korean public has a reputation for holding celebrities to high moral standards. But recent releases in the K-pop scene may suggest Korea's "cancel culture" is not as absolute as people think it is. Are Korean listeners learning to separate the artist from their content?

In Korea, stars are expected to not only entertain, but also set an example for society. Those who deviate from such standards often fall out of public favor and get "canceled" overnight. After a fall from grace, fully regaining popularity or coming back to the entertainment industry at all can be extremely difficult. This is especially the case for K-pop singers, who rely on a more relatable image than actors.

On April 5, Big Bang released its digital single "Still Life" after a four-year hiatus. The long gap was partially caused by the boy band members' mandatory military services, but another large reason was that Big Bang's reputation had been severely damaged after years various legal troubles.

G-Dragon and T.O.P were both caught up in legal drama for using marijuana, with the latter receiving a 10-month suspended prison sentence for repeated use.

Daesung was alleged to have knowingly allowed a prostitution service to operate in a building owned by him. While the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, the accusation that he tacitly approved of the service still follows him.

The biggest blow to Big Bang's reputation was former member Seungri's involvement in the 2019 Burning Sun scandal. The infamous scandal of sex crimes, prostitution, drugs and police protection led Seungri to leave the band. He is currently in prison serving an 18-month sentence.

The Korean public has expressed anger toward Big Bang's extensive track record with the law and the notion that members have evaded adequate punishment. Many expressed disdain when Big Bang's comeback was announced last month, saying they would refuse to stream the band's song or music video.

But the calls for a boycott turned out not to be much of a concern. "Still Life" immediately shot to No. 1 on Korean music charts as well as iTunes Top Songs charts in 33 regions.

Boy band Stray Kids is another example of K-pop stars who were seemingly unaffected by an ethics scandal. Early last year when the entire Korean entertainment industry was shaken up by a chain of school bullying allegations, Stray Kids member Hyunjin was swept up in accusations by former schoolmates. Hyunjin admitted to verbal abuse, promptly issued an apology and halted his activities. When he returned four months later, he faced criticism that his suspension was too brief.

However, Stray Kids and Hyunjin's career afterward went from strength to strength. The band's subsequent album that summer recorded its highest CD sales as of that time, which was broken again by "Oddinary" in March.

"Oddinary" also made Stray Kids the third K-pop act ever to top the Billboard 200 albums chart, following BTS and SuperM. Hyunjin is still a popular member and a key part of the band's vocals and dance.

Does this mean the Korean public no longer cares as much about moral fumbles? Most of the aforementioned scandals like marijuana use or school bullying would be deemed as insignificant to non-Koreans. Experts say there are a number of background factors to consider.

"Koreans still tend to require exemplary ethical behavior from celebrities and take unethical conduct quite seriously," said Lee Gyu-tag, a professor of pop music and media studies at George Mason University Korea and the author of "The K-pop Age" (2016). "We may see many bands go on to see commercial success even after a drug or bullying scandal. But we will likely not see them on things, like advertisements, that require favorable views from the wider public."

Lee added that while the general public may hold an artist in contempt after a moral scandal, they are not as hardline when it comes to completely 'canceling' them - but it heavily depends on the star's response to the backlash.

"I'd say the biggest factor that made Hyunjin and Stray Kids' quick recovery possible was the fact that he 'lied down flat,' as we say in Korean," Lee said. "He took on a very submissive attitude. Instead of denying or playing games with the public, Hyunjin apologized immediately. He was still criticized for a while, but that was seen as the right attitude to be spared from being completely shunned, as long as it's not a serious crime. Big Bang's display of repenting was not as evident, but Seungri did leave and the band took a very long hiatus despite being such a big name in K-pop. Koreans may be strict, but they're not merciless."

This may explain why the outcome was so different for other stars who practically lost their careers due to bullying scandals.

Soojin of girl group (G)I-DLE denied bullying accusations despite allegations from multiple past schoolmates. She eventually left the group and lost her contract with her agency. Naeun of girl group April, who was accused of bullying her former groupmate Lee Hyun-joo, also denied the claims but was dropped from all advertisements and TV series.

Pop culture critic Jeong Deok-hyun also attributes such varying outcomes to diversified fandoms. As fandoms have diversified, so have their expectations for morality. Expectations can vary within one fandom as well because they consist of more and more fans of different cultural backgrounds.

"Nowadays, K-pop singers' success relies on support from fandoms rather than approval from the general public," Jeong said. "What the general public thinks matters much less than before. There are still fans that turn their backs if a celebrity violates their moral standards. But even then, the fandom is so diverse that a large chunk of fans - for instance, non-Korean fans who tend to care less about moral scandals - remain unbothered and keep supporting."

In the past, K-pop singers had mostly domestic fans and relied mainly on conventional media like television to promote themselves. Traditionally, Korean television channels take public sentiment into account and indefinitely ban celebrities who have been involved in moral scandals or legal troubles, rendering them unable to reach the public like before. Early examples of 'canceled' K-pop stars in the late 2000s such as Isu of M.C the MAX, who was found to have hired an underage prostitute, and MC Mong, who evaded his mandatory military service, saw their careers crumble.

Today, K-pop acts have developed numerous methods to communicate with fans all over the world, through social media and self-produced YouTube shows without relying much on conventional media. While controversial K-pop stars may not be welcomed on advertisements or TV shows, it's no longer a critical blow to their careers.

Jeong stressed that continued commercial success does not necessarily mean that the general public has gotten over past misdeeds. In fact, many lament Big Bang's successful comeback claiming it sends the message that morals do not matter anymore. Hyunjin's name frequently recurs in articles about school bullying, and the stigma still follows him in the eyes of non-fans. It's just that the general public's opinion is less of a priority in today's fandom-driven K-pop scene.

One case that is currently drawing curiosity for how it will unfold is the upcoming debut of girl group Le Sserafim. Even before debuting, member Kim Ga-ram has faced multiple bullying accusations. Photos of her posing with sexually explicit doodles and obscene hand gestures in middle school were revealed, instantly turning the public's anticipation into criticism. Since the bullying allegations remain unconfirmed, the controversy surrounding her is largely about the explicit photos, which are not unethical per se but have damaged the morally upright image she is expected to have.

The criticism suggests that Koreans still require stars uphold a strict moral standard, but her agency's decision to keep Kim in the group and carry on with the debut shows that public sentiment wields less impact than before. Le Sserafim and Kim are receiving enthusiastic support from non-Korean fans, who mostly find the scandal insignificant.

"Compared to the past, it's hard to say for sure what behavior will lead to being canceled and what won't," Jeong said. "Some say those controversial stars shouldn't come back and that moral expectations shouldn't become more lax. But we can't really demand others to shun certain artists. It's up to each listener to decide what's 'too immoral' in their eyes, or if they should expect morality from artists at all."

BY HALEY YANG [yang.hyunjoo@joongang.co.kr]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The wrath of 'cancel culture' wanes for K-pop stars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Korean public has a reputation for holding celebrities to high moral standards. But recent releases in the K-pop scene may suggest Korea's "cancel culture" is not as absolute as people think it is. Are Korean listeners learning to separate ...

# data[].attributes.body
Can bring accountability for public issues and have others mass see it

Helps the mass public be private and keep certain things off the internet

Cannot hide behind intersectionality

Destroys social elitism and tradition

# data[].attributes.body
Can easily become online harassment and potentially real life harassment because some doxx and expose home address.

Some are canceled for minute things, which detracts from the mission of cancel culture.

Politics have become overly involved in cancel culture, and the stigma around it is based on political affiliation.

# data[].attributes.body
People have become fired from real life jobs because of what they have said on the internet.

If one is doxxed because of cancel culture, their mental and physical wellbeing can be permanently changed.

Cyberbullying is often a byproduct of what cancel culture has become.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Cancel Culture on Social Media in the Philippines