Quote
"

Feminists have always been accused of hating men because it is a very effective way of silencing a very threatening movement. In a society where women’s value is based on our ability to please men, and where men hold almost all the cards, the worst possible thing we can do is hate them. So when feminists point out and object to the oppression, abuse and discrimination perpetuated by men against women, this is framed as man hating in an attempt to silence us, in an attempt to ensure that we are vilified and ignored by the rest of society, so that male oppression of women and male privilege can continue unchecked.

No matter how we frame our arguments and no matter what kind of image we seek to project, as long as we highlight, object to and fight misogyny, feminists are going to be called man haters.

So I’m not going to waste my time trying to prove that I’m not.

"

— “Man haters?” by Laura on The F Word blog (via acruelambition)

(via bubonickitten)

Text

The Distress of the Privileged

14kgoldnyc:

cgdageek:

amydentata:

In a memorable scene from the 1998 film Pleasantville (in which two 1998 teen-agers are transported into the black-and-white world of a 1950s TV show), the father of the TV-perfect Parker family returns from work and says the magic words “Honey, I’m home!”, expecting them to conjure up a smiling wife, adorable children, and dinner on the table.

This time, though, it doesn’t work. No wife, no kids, no food. Confused, he repeats the invocation, as if he must have said it wrong. After searching the house, he wanders out into the rain and plaintively questions this strangely malfunctioning Universe: “Where’s my dinner?”

Privileged distress. I’m not bringing this up just to discuss old movies. As the culture evolves, people who benefitted from the old ways invariably see themselves as victims of change. The world used to fit them like a glove, but it no longer does. Increasingly, they find themselves in unfamiliar situations that feel unfair or even unsafe. Their concerns used to take center stage, but now they must compete with the formerly invisible concerns of others.

(read more)

I think the Pleasantville analogy is perfect. “Where’s my dinner?”  Spot-fucking-on.

But I don’t agree with the idea that we should “play nice” with bigoted assholes.

Ditto. The concept of Privileged Distress is pretty fucking perfect for understanding what the fuck these people are thinking, for seeing what their brains are grappling with. But the suggestions? You can understand where they’re coming from without coddling them. People have to deal with hard shit in life—adapting to no longer being the center of the universe, something most of the world’s population goes through around age 4, is certainly something straight White cis dudes can handle without further sacrifices on the part of the historically oppressed.

They’ve been allowed to act like toddlers forever; the article wants us to keep doing so, really, to put their ~hurty feelings~ above the profound damage they do to others. Yeah, no. Coddling the feels of privileged people just reinforces privileged behavior.

Bolded for emphasis.

(via aka14kgold)

Tags: privilege
Quote
"Here’s a question: if Barack Obama had to go through a brutal process of defending the doctrines, sermons and ideology of a church he merely attended, why is Mitt Romney exempted from explaining the doctrines and statements and ideology of a church he was an actual leading official in?"

Andrew Sullivan, at The Dish.

more.

(via thesmithian)

That’s a very good question…

(via abaldwin360)

(via kyssthis16)

Text

Wag

rosa—sparks:

Racialicious said this and I want to further.

White women don’t get to wag their fingers at a black man.

Nope. I’m going there.

If you, as white person, in WHATEVER capacity you exist, wag your finger at a black person, you’re a pig.

We can talk about respect and holding higher office and who has what job, but the it doesn’t fucking matter.

You, as a white person, DO NOT WAG YOUR FINGERS at black people.

You can disagree, argue, dislike and even become infuriated, but you DO NOT WAG YOUR FINGERS, AT ANYONE.

Imagine if Barack Obama wagged his finger at Jan Brewer? Imagine if I wagged my finger at my monkey-fighting co-worker who is disrespectful and rude, ALL THE LIVE LONG DAY. Her egregious behavior wouldn’t matter because I performed such an heinous and hateful and idiotic gesture that I would be skewered by all.

Jan Brewer’s privilege, hatred and bigotry is showing. Not because she wagged her at President Barack Obama, but because she couldn’t check herself from wagging her finger at a black man, as if he was some child deserving a scolding.  He doesn’t agree with her hateful shit. NO SURPRISES THERE.

If you can’t respectfully defend your bigoted policies, then you have the problem, not the man who challenged you and took you to task. If as your only defense, you wag your finger at the person who brought it up, then you’re the jerk.

Jan Brewer is a table. Not that it’s a surprise, really, I mean look at what she’s been peddling as Governor of Arizona. Yuck.

(Source: ro-s-a-spark-s)

Quote
"If you think internet anonymity is a license to act like a racist, sexist, foul-mouthed bigot, you’re a douchebag. In fact, what you need is a therapist and a swift kick in the gooch."

- Zachary Levi, VGA 2011 (via seraix)

+1 for being Zachary Levi

+1 for being awesome

+1 for “gooch”—a usefully goofy, non-gender-specific term for genitalia that I can use to supplement ‘nads….finally!

(via downlo)

(via thisfan)

Text

Waif-fu, sneaky sexism, and faux empowerment

glossylalia:

thusspakekate:

downlo:

Once again, Cracked surprises me by publishing a thoughtful cultural critique. I thought they were a humor site?

Michelle Rodriguez (pictured above in Girlfight) on being typecast as the strong chick who keeps getting killed:

“… people can call it typecast, but I pigeonholed myself … Saying no to the girlfriend, saying no to the girl that gets captured, no to this, no to that, and eventually I just got left with the strong chick who’s always being killed, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

You read that right: She’s limited her roles to interesting, strong characters. For a male actor, that means “action hero.” For a woman, it means she has to die — over and over and over again, each time making way for the petite model to take down the villain with her Waif-Fu instead. That’s the phrase TV Tropes coined to describe the martial art that allows a woman to thrash trained soldiers twice her size while having no musculature on her frame at all. It’s considered empowering when Joss Whedon includes ass-kicking females in everything he writes, but when he needs a badass kung fu killing machine, he casts the pretty, wispy Summer Glau.

The women who develop careers as action stars are not just pretty, but are pretty in the most feminine way possible: Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Uma Thurman, Milla Jovovich, Michelle Yeoh and Halle Berry.
[…]

Joss Whedon can pretend like the ass-kicking supermodels were created as a reaction to the helpless victims, but he’s just substituting one weird male fantasy with another. It’s as if there’s nothing in between “beautiful victimized woman crying while splattered in blood” and “beautiful invincible woman kicking people while wearing skintight fetish gear.”

Now seriously—who looks like she’s more capable of kicking your ass? Michelle Rodriguez or any of the following women?

Hell, I think Michelle could kick ALL of their tiny asses in one go. Yet we’re supposed to believe that waifish women without visible muscles can credibly play invincible badasses?

I love Joss Whedon’s work, but the point the article makes is undeniable. He did challenge action/horror convention by creating female protagonists who don’t rely on male characters to save them. But he also cast conventionally beautiful, femme, delicate-looking women to play those butt-kicking, strong female characters. One step forward, two steps back.

I do believe Joss is sincere about his feminism, but sincerity only gets you so far. The situation reminds me of those ‘enlightened’ liberal guys who say they prefer pretty brunettes over pretty blondes.

I’d like to make a slight defense of Joss and say that, specifically with Buffy, the entire point was that it was an unassuming young woman. He’s said in interviews that the whole inspiration for Buffy came from an idea of a scene where you see a small young blonde woman—your stereotypical ~*victim*~—running through the woods. The audience sees this an assumes she is on the run from an attacker. But then, it is revealed that she is actually the hunter—not the hunted. The point was to turn audience expectations of the beautiful, feminine, delicate looking cliche on its head. Also, Buffy, like the other Slayers we see on the show, was imbibed with the spirit of a demon in order to have her powers. Her powers are supernatural, they don’t come from working out in the gym and taking a lot of kickboxing lessons. 

With River, Joss continues his fascination with institutionalization and governmental attempts to create super-warriors (which is a common trope in sci-fi!) that we see in Season 4 of Buffy with The Initiative and Adam. Again, I think the point with River was that we underestimate the potential strength and power of femininity. And like Buffy, this power that isn’t something that is naturally gained or purposefully sought after, its forced upon them by patriarchal institutions (the alliance and the watcher’s council respectively) and then used against said institutions to dismantle or at the very least discredit them. Yes, Summer Glau is waspish and willowy, but River Tam is a government experiment. 

I haven’t watched Dollhouse, so I will refrain from comment on that.

Can we hope for/demand a larger and more diverse look to the women of the whedonverse? Hell yes. And we should. We all know he’s crap at writing POC characters and the whedonverse is—generally speaking, a whiteopia. I’m certainly not trying to claim that he gets it 100% right and that I have no bones to pick with him regarding representation, but I think that when we’re talking about sci-fi/fantasy genres, we also have to look at the character’s origin story in addition to the actor who is cast in that role. 

Right but, I think the question may also be more of a systematic issue as to WHY female action/sci-fi protags are always coded in a manner to be casted in this way. Even with the primary example of Rodriguez given, her characters have also never been mainline protags, that in itself is a foundation to take issue with. 

Bless this convo.

Specifically regarding the comment just above me, I’ve spoken to (white, cis, unbelievably arrogant) guys who have flat-out informed me that they have absolutely no interest in seeing a movie based on a woman’s perspective.  They say it has nothing to do with them.  Even some women have piped up and said that it seems like it would be “more boring.”  And unfortunately this seems to be the viewpoint most execs in Hollywood seem to be endorsing.

To which I would like to politely say:

(via dammitcaleb-deactivated20130328)

Photo
tal9000:

[Image: Clippy the annoying paperclip from some versions of MS Office, saying “It looks like you’re not trying to adhere to capitalistic norms of productivity and worth. Would you like me to help you fit in better?” followed by four bullet points: “How can you be happy if you don’t work?” “Don’t you feel bad for making your family/partner support you?” “I’m sure you could find a job if you just sipped some tea and looked harder.” “But you can go to the store! I don’t understand why you can’t work!”]
ickyharry:

Privileged Paperclip found here.

tal9000:

[Image: Clippy the annoying paperclip from some versions of MS Office, saying “It looks like you’re not trying to adhere to capitalistic norms of productivity and worth. Would you like me to help you fit in better?” followed by four bullet points: “How can you be happy if you don’t work?” “Don’t you feel bad for making your family/partner support you?” “I’m sure you could find a job if you just sipped some tea and looked harder.” “But you can go to the store! I don’t understand why you can’t work!”]

ickyharry:

Privileged Paperclip found here.

(via bubonickitten)

Text

irritablevowel asked: OK, so. I read your list about recognizing whether you are racist. The very last line encourages people who have answered “yes” to “do something about it.” So I guess my question is, what are some constructive things an individual such as myself can do to fight the good fight day to day? How about more overarching things to work on in the long run?

newwavefeminism:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

the only overarching thing I can say to keep track of is to realize that everything you do is colored by your existence in a society that tells you that your way is correct. Remembering that you are naturally biased against PoC (not intentionally, but that is how white people in most countries are raised), and that racism isn’t about you, ever, at all, are the two biggest weapons a white person has to fight their racist tendencies.

had to make this rebloggable. I feel like this is an awesomely concise answer to this question. All of our interactions are shaped and directly affected by the way society constructs race, race relations and the racial hierarchy we live in. Throw gender in there and things get even more fucked up. When you’re a person whose ‘culture’ & way of life is normative and framed as the only or “correct way” - you need to be conscious of the fact that there are SO MANY people, that you probably deal with every day, who have to struggle against the fact that their way of life, or culture, is BY DEFAULT incorrect or “otherized”

I just need this on my blog.

(Source: the-original-dtwps, via squeetothegee-deactivated201111)

Photo
so-treu:

wearethe99percent:

I don’t know you.
I can’t speak for you.
I can’t know how you personally identify.
But I do know that I just counted photos of
1028 people I perceived as white, and
123 people I perceived as not white
on wearethe99percent.tumblr.com (as of 4:00 10/12/2011)
By these numbers, 89% of the pictures telling personal stories that included photographs were of white individuals or groups of only white people. Based on 2010 Census, 64% of the US is white (non-Hispanic).
So who’s dominating this discourse? Are we really the 99%?
Know your enemies, but know your privilege too. Think about race. Think about class.
I am one part of the 99 percent, and I want to be very conscious of the rest.
——-
My (sloppy) method: I clicked through all 84 pages of tumblr making tally marks for people I thought were white, and people I thought were not white. I kept record of the amounts of submissions without photographs or indicators of race, but then I lost count. My numbers are likely off some, because I didn’t double check them. Regardless of this exercise’s precise accuracy, the visual absence of people of color in many of the Occupy _____s is stark. My judgements of “white” and “not white” should not be taken as an insinuation that I am the expert in determining race, or that I am obsessed with racializing everyone I see. It should, however, be recognized as a reflexive response that has been ingrained in us to immediately asses people by attributing to them race, gender, and other identity classifiers. This tally test was a result of me wanting to test my visceral perception of the “99 percent’s” visual representations.

for example.

important post is important.

so-treu:

wearethe99percent:

I don’t know you.

I can’t speak for you.

I can’t know how you personally identify.

But I do know that I just counted photos of

1028 people I perceived as white, and

123 people I perceived as not white

on wearethe99percent.tumblr.com (as of 4:00 10/12/2011)

By these numbers, 89% of the pictures telling personal stories that included photographs were of white individuals or groups of only white people. Based on 2010 Census, 64% of the US is white (non-Hispanic).

So who’s dominating this discourse? Are we really the 99%?

Know your enemies, but know your privilege too. Think about race. Think about class.

I am one part of the 99 percent, and I want to be very conscious of the rest.

——-

My (sloppy) method: I clicked through all 84 pages of tumblr making tally marks for people I thought were white, and people I thought were not white. I kept record of the amounts of submissions without photographs or indicators of race, but then I lost count. My numbers are likely off some, because I didn’t double check them. Regardless of this exercise’s precise accuracy, the visual absence of people of color in many of the Occupy _____s is stark. My judgements of “white” and “not white” should not be taken as an insinuation that I am the expert in determining race, or that I am obsessed with racializing everyone I see. It should, however, be recognized as a reflexive response that has been ingrained in us to immediately asses people by attributing to them race, gender, and other identity classifiers. This tally test was a result of me wanting to test my visceral perception of the “99 percent’s” visual representations.

for example.

important post is important.

(via karnythia)

Photo
cognitivedissonance:

Caption: Students Kritz Eliza and Taylor Matzen, dressed as American Indians, participate during a bake sale led by the Berkeley College Republicans Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2011, at the University of California campus in Berkeley, Calif. The Berkeley College Republicans have scheduled a bake sale where the price of a cookie or a brownie depends on your gender and the color of your skin. The price of a baked good costs $2 for white people, $1.50 if you’re Asian, $1 for Latinos, 75 cents for African-Americans and 25 cents for Native Americans. Women get a discount of 25 cents. From SFgate.com
Wow. White girls in headdresses, participating in the bake sale. Are they trying to get free cookies or what? This is the insensitivity supported by the UC Berkeley Campus Republicans and their bake sale. From the article:

The Republican students said offering more expensive pastries to white students and less expensive ones to students of other ethnicities illustrated the injustice of any division by race.  A few feet away from the bake sale, opposing groups held a “Conscious Cupcakes” giveaway, handing out their own treats for free. And around midday, hundreds of people dressed in black laid down in Sproul Plaza, silently demonstrating their support of SB185.

This come from the opposition to a bill that would allow California’s universities to consider race and ethnicity as one of many factors, like extra-curriculars, in college admissions. The bill would still ban admission based entirely on race or ethnicity. 
<sarcasm> Here’s something more honest: How about you still charge the white guy $2.00 for the cookie, give him $3 to buy it, and then let him punch the Native American students in order to steal their cookies, screaming “MANIFEST DESTINY, ASSHOLES!” triumphantly? After that, how about the African-American students are forced to clean up after the bake sale, as the Campus Republicans sip mint juleps and supervise? Is that more honest? </sarcasm>
I don’t support throwing the baked goods at them, nor screaming obscenities. I do absolutely love the steps taken by the Harry Potter student group, selling “enchanted Costco muffins,” for “Two galleons to pure bloods” and “Eight sickles to muggles.”

#the point#you’re missing it
Sometimes you have to wonder how much is general stupidity and how much is brain damage.  This picture, with that article.

The Harry Potter group wins, though.  Sometimes you have to fight the outrageous with something just as silly.  (or something completely awesome.)

cognitivedissonance:

Caption: Students Kritz Eliza and Taylor Matzen, dressed as American Indians, participate during a bake sale led by the Berkeley College Republicans Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2011, at the University of California campus in Berkeley, Calif. The Berkeley College Republicans have scheduled a bake sale where the price of a cookie or a brownie depends on your gender and the color of your skin. The price of a baked good costs $2 for white people, $1.50 if you’re Asian, $1 for Latinos, 75 cents for African-Americans and 25 cents for Native Americans. Women get a discount of 25 cents. From SFgate.com

Wow. White girls in headdresses, participating in the bake sale. Are they trying to get free cookies or what? This is the insensitivity supported by the UC Berkeley Campus Republicans and their bake sale. From the article:

The Republican students said offering more expensive pastries to white students and less expensive ones to students of other ethnicities illustrated the injustice of any division by race. A few feet away from the bake sale, opposing groups held a “Conscious Cupcakes” giveaway, handing out their own treats for free. And around midday, hundreds of people dressed in black laid down in Sproul Plaza, silently demonstrating their support of SB185.

This come from the opposition to a bill that would allow California’s universities to consider race and ethnicity as one of many factors, like extra-curriculars, in college admissions. The bill would still ban admission based entirely on race or ethnicity. 

<sarcasm> Here’s something more honest: How about you still charge the white guy $2.00 for the cookie, give him $3 to buy it, and then let him punch the Native American students in order to steal their cookies, screaming “MANIFEST DESTINY, ASSHOLES!” triumphantly? After that, how about the African-American students are forced to clean up after the bake sale, as the Campus Republicans sip mint juleps and supervise? Is that more honest? </sarcasm>

I don’t support throwing the baked goods at them, nor screaming obscenities. I do absolutely love the steps taken by the Harry Potter student group, selling “enchanted Costco muffins,” for “Two galleons to pure bloods” and “Eight sickles to muggles.”

#the point
#you’re missing it

Sometimes you have to wonder how much is general stupidity and how much is brain damage.  This picture, with that article.

The Harry Potter group wins, though.  Sometimes you have to fight the outrageous with something just as silly.  (or something completely awesome.)