I AM SORRY BUT NO
YOU FOLLOW THE RULES TO THE ACTUAL LETTER ALL DAY LONG BECAUSE YOU’RE AFRAID THAT A WOMAN WHO IS SACRIFICING HER COMFORT AND TIME TO STAND UP AND TALK FOR HOURS UPON HOURS ABOUT SOMETHING SHE BELIEVES IN MIGHT ACTUALLY WIN
AND THE MINUTE YOU DON’T GET YOUR WAY, YOU BREAK THOSE RULES?
I DON’T FUCKING THINK SO
the rules she has to follow to the letter, going without water or any kind of rest, etc - the rules white dudes before her have openly flouted and gotten way with it - don’t even fucking technically apply to her because they are all written with masculine pronouns
can we talk about how the men aren’t even looking at her, though
can we talk about how their private conversations about, oh, idk, where they’re going to be playing golf next weekend are apparently more important than understanding why a woman wants – needs – the right to…
This body of work is an exploration of the extent of cultural appropriation and encourages a discussion about it. I give the appropriator and the appropriated the opportunity to defend themselves and create a dialogue between them, while maintaining a neutral stance myself. I am not attacking those who appropriate, merely educating and creating awareness. Neutrality is key in this series, as i remove myself from my political and social status and opinions, stripping the problem to the most basic issue; taking an item that means a great deal to somebody and corrupting it.
Jane Espenson (from interview with Advocate.com)\
I dunno how many which ways this needs to be said
Quick, messy graphic to explain a concept that seems obvious to me:
We shouldn’t be helping women because they’re related to someone else. We shouldn’t be helping women because someone else cares about them. We should be helping women because they are people.
We should be helping women for their own sake.
Why is that a hard concept for people to grasp?
You know, a few months ago this dude friend of mine showed up to hang out with me all dejected. Over a couple of drinks he explained his long face — earlier that night, he’d been walking down the street behind this really cute girl, and when she looked back at him over her shoulder, he thought it was in interest and smiled at her. Now, this guy is tall and skinny, can most commonly be found in glasses and t-shirts scrawled across with math jokes, is kind to animals, considers himself a feminist. What he doesn’t consider himself is threatening, so he was surprised, confused, and even hurt by what happened next: the girl in front of him responding to his called greeting of, “Nice skirt,” by taking off down the darkened street in a dead run.
“Yeah,” I said, “she probably thought you were going to rape her.”
“But that’s not fair,” he said. “I’m a good person; I’d never rape anyone! How could she think that? She doesn’t even know me.”
Out here in the wilds of the internet, I often find myself making arguments about shit like feminism and rape culture unilaterally. For one thing, there’s so much (like, so much) out there arguing unilaterally against this shit that I feel it’s necessary; for another thing, ‘round these parts there’s a lot of people jumping to hostility when it’s painfully clear they don’t have a handle on all the facts. But I’m more lenient with the people in my real life, especially dudes like the one mentioned above. I’m willing to extend to them a patience that I wouldn’t with strangers on the internet, because they matter to me, and it matters to me that they understand. So when my friend sat there that night, whining over his beer and responding to my attempted explanations with, “But I’d love it if a girl smiled at me on the street, or even catcalled at me! Fuck, even if a dude did it, I’d be flattered,” I decided to spend some time thinking about how to clear things up for him. It took awhile, but I finally came up with a metaphor to get the job done:
Consider the bank.
Take a facet of crime, and then look at television shows/movies that feature those criminals as protagonists.
White serial killers.
White political corruption
White drug dealers
Also, Lily Potter would have never wanted an abortion, because she was a financially well-off white woman starting a family in a happy marriage with a secure place at the top of wizarding society.
The question you should be asking is what if Merope Gaunt, an impoverished and uneducated single woman who escaped from a severely abusive family only to become pregnant with the unwanted child of a man who wanted nothing to do with her, had had access to an abortion and not had immense social pressure brainwashing her into carrying to term?
Stop telling women that we should find ourselves beautiful and that we should love ourselves when you are standing right there, judging us on how our knees look in short skirts and how prominent our boobs are in a sweater and how much makeup we are or are not wearing.
Instead of us working harder on “love your body” and “find your inner beauty”, the rest of the world should be working harder on “stop telling women their bodies are a shameful place to live but that if they’re strong enough, they will learn to embrace that shame.”
This is my body. It’s not “beautiful”. I don’t “love it”. I don’t have to. I don’t have to have any strong feelings about my body. And whatever feelings I do have are not somehow invalid if they’re not glowing reviews." - Elyse Mofo, “Don’t Tell Me to Love My Body” (via cleamour)
John Cho, in a great, long-read 2009 interview on the UCLA Asia Institute’s Asia Pacific Arts website. Thanks to radiophile for the link.
This quote strikes me as particularly relevant in the aftermath of the STID press tour and John’s comments. He’s always thinking about the portrayal of race in media and culture because it hits home. And he’s a total BAMF for consistently pointing out when people get it wrong.
The “wives, sisters, daughters” line of argument comes up all the fucking time. President Obama even used it in his State of the Union address this year, saying,
“We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence.”
This device, which Obama has used on more than one occasion, is reductive as hell. It defines women by their relationships to other people, rather than as people themselves. It says that women are only important when they are married to, have given birth to, or have been fathered by other people. It says that women are only important because of who they belong to.
Women are not possessions.
Women are people." - The Believer Logger: I am not your wife, sister or daughter (via loveyourchaos)
If you are part of a privileged group and have to constantly demand that somebody in an oppressed group say “not all (insert privileged group here) are like that”
what you are really demanding is that they reassure you that you’re not like that and you’re not being held accountable
which is a cowardly thing to do and also shows the great lengths you will go to in order to avoid examining your role in a toxic system
damn this is a good post
Unfortunately they don’t know what Zionism is. Zionism is a political philosophy which has brought about the so-called state of Israel. This political philosophy has nothing to do with religion. On the contrary, it seeks to confuse others and let them think that Zionism and Judaism is one in the same. I am a conscious African. I know properly my history. I know that Africa gave Judaism to the world. I know that the first Jews in the world were African. Not only do I know this, but I inform everyone who has doubts about it to read a book by Sigmund Freud entitled “Moses and Monotheism” as a beginning. Consequently, I know that Judaism and Zionism are not the same.
Zionism had its first organization expressions in 1897 in Switzerland, in Europe. Here was a man by the name of Theodor Herzl; he was the founder of Zionism. He said that he was going to find the state that God promised the Jews. Listen to this very carefully. This man Herzl was an atheist. He believed there was no God. He said God did not exist. How is a man that believes that God does not exist, is going to find a state that God promised to his chosen people. I tell you, this man is Satan in disguise.
Zionism is a Satanic movement. It is devil. It is Imperalism, it is racist; it has gone and taken the land of the Palestinian people, and through terrorism has driven them out, and through terrorism, it maintains its power. And the United States of America, with over 6,000,000 homeless, sends to Israel billions and billions and billions of dollars everywhere to bomb Palestinian people while homeless people are here and unemployed are here. Zionism is going to raise this war and make the people of America become clear to what it is, and become anti-Zionist, and stop the aid to Israel, and use the money to take care of the homeless in this country." -
Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) on Zionism.
Answer to question: You also mention Zionism and said that some our young people in the Persian Gulf may not understand the role that Zionism is playing in this conflict. Could you explain what you mean by that?