“People have criticized the show for not having more black characters, but others think the show is just being true to the context of an ad agency in the mid-sixties. Do you have any thoughts? And since you’re playing the first black employee, do you feel pressured to have a lot of opinions about this?

I did not feel a lot of pressure. I am happy to be a part of the show. I know that this show hasn’t had an African-American in the office and I know that comes with a lot of responsibility as to how I portray this woman, but I can’t think about that. I can only go in and do what I think this woman would do. I try not to think, Oh, I have to represent every single black person in the world that was there in the sixties. I have to tell this one woman’s story and what that was for her. I’m kind of on the fence because as a black actress, there aren’t a lot of roles out there for us, and so you see a great show and it’s like, Oh wow, I would love to be on that show. Oh, but there are no black people on it. So that part is frustrating and I understand that, but at the same time I don’t expect to be a part of everyone’s story if it’s not true to the story that they’re trying to tell.”

Failing to use inclusive language feeds cissexism, and it also feeds the agenda of the right by playing on its own terms. Talking about ‘the war on women’ excludes large groups of people, and also muddies the discussion. Because there is, very specifically, a war on women, cis and trans, going on in US society right now, and while it is linked with the reproductive rights debate, it is not identical; the war on reproductive rights overlaps but is not synonymous. Much of the language surrounding attacks on reproductive rights is deeply misogynist and rooted in attitudes about women, and this needs to be addressed, of course, but it’s not the only thing going on here.

(Source: se-smith)