I am not a woman trapped in a man’s body. This body is no man’s; it is mine, it is me, and there is no man in that equation. And I am not trapped in it. There are a million and one ways out of this body, and I have clung to it, tooth and claw, despite an endless line of people and institutions who would rather I vacate the premises, and have sometimes been willing to make me bleed to convince me they’re right.
This body is mine, and I claim it and its bruises, and it is not a man’s, and I am not trapped here. I have looked leaving my body in the eye and I have said, in the end, hell no. There is too much to do, too much to love, too many who need one more of us to say hell no and help them say the same.
My parents are always very “nice” and “polite” when they tell me they refuse to call me my name. That one pastor who wanted to forcibly poison me with testosterone was very “civil” when “suggesting” the idea to me. And my rapist was very “kind” when he was grooming me for what was about to happen.
There’s a certain subset of activists who are under the misapprehension that the real root cause of all our social ills is just that everybody is too mean to each other, and that if we could all just learn to get along, we wouldn’t have the problems that we do. This is why they can say, with a straight face, that those of us who give voice to our rage are “making things worse” and are “just as bad as the bigots are”: to them, the problem is not that power disparities force marginalized people into conflict to preserve themselves, but that there is conflict at all. Or, as MLK would have it, they prefer “a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice”.
(This is, of course, also the sentiment that underlies the “We’re just like you” strategy, which in turn underlies cis gay transmisogyny among many other things.)
That type of thinking may work for short-term gains here and there, but it is not enough to win liberation, or even basic safety for a lot of us. In fact, a common tactic used by a lot of abusers is to act “civil” while their victim becomes infuriated, and then go, “See, I’m perfectly calm and civil, and you’re losing your shit, so clearly you’re just being unreasonable/irrational/crazy.”
Besides, in my experience, it’s not possible to have meaningful conversations/activism/whatever about gender, race, queerness, social construction of bodies, etc. without acknowledging power disparities. Well, I mean… you can, if you’re just coming out, or you just became aware that prejudice was a thing, or if you’re fighting for a relatively minor thing that doesn’t actually require system-smashing, or whatever. But there are only so many times you can go, “Boy, those bigots sure are mean to us, aren’t they?” before it just grows stale, and you can’t really go beyond that until you’re willing to look at why the bigots are mean, and acknowledge that there’s actually a lot more going on than just “so-and-so is ignorant/hateful/stupid for not liking us”.
And yes, sometimes this acknowledgement does come in the form of calm, “civil,” “polite” explanation. And sometimes it comes in an outburst of rage that may seem “disproportionate” to privileged people who are only looking at the one isolated incident, but that is actually very reined-in and measured considering what marginalized people have to deal with every day.
Don’t fucking gaslight us by telling us that our rages “proves” how untrustworthy we are when it comes to our own lives. And don’t fucking demand “politeness” from us, especially since “politeness” usually means “not making privileged people uncomfortable.”
“A man who assisted in autopsies in a big urban hospital, starting in the mid-1950s, describes the many deaths from botched abortions that he saw. “The deaths stopped overnight in 1973.” He never saw another in the 18 years before he retired. “That,” he says, “ought to tell people something about keeping abortion legal.”—“The Way It Was” — Mother Jones Magazine — Abortion before Roe v. Wade. (via ellielamothe)
(CNN) If fertility rates continue at expected levels, the world’s population is likely to reach 10.1 billion in the next 90 years. Based on conservative estimates, the number of people in the world should pass 8 billion in 2023, 9 billion by 2041 and 10 billion at some point after 2081.
Just take a moment to think about that. By 2100, we could have nearly 50% more people on this planet than we did at the beginning of the century, competing for the same food, water, space and attention.
One of the best ways to ensure that the 7 billionth child born will live in a safe, healthy and sustainable world is to focus on what women want and need. Researchers at the Guttmacher Institute found there are 215 million women worldwide who want the ability to time and space their pregnancies, but do not have access to effective methods of contraception. Women want to be able to deliver children safely and provide for them.
Universal access to voluntary family planning is a cross-cutting and cost-effective solution to achieving all of the Millennium Development Goals. In addition to reducing maternal mortality, providing voluntary family planning methods and education enables young women to avoid early pregnancy, allows more girls to attend school longer, makes it possible for women to have fewer, healthier children and helps break the inter-generational cycle of poverty. Additionally, it would reduce HIV transmission, empower women to pursue income-generating activities in their communities and promote environmental sustainability.
Focusing on these needs is also a smart investment. There is no better value for the money than international family planning, which provides a higher return on investment than almost any other type of development assistance. Researchers at the Guttmacher Institute have found that providing quality reproductive health care and modern contraceptives to all women who want and need them reduces the cost of maternal and newborn care for each dollar invested, resulting in a net total savings of $1.5 billion.
Despite the low cost and many benefits of voluntary family planning, world leaders have not consistently made funding for these programs a priority. The current economic climate has forced Congress to take a long, hard look at its spending and rightly make some tough choices. However, far too often in this debate, the needs of women and children are the first items heaped onto the chopping block.
This year’s budget discussion has been no exception. Two of the most disturbing and shortsighted of the foreign aid budget cuts are those in funding for international family planning and the U.N. Population Fund. The fund is an agency focused on assisting governments in delivering quality sexual and reproductive health care — including voluntary family planning — throughout the life cycle of women across the globe who want and need it.
One of the smartest investments I ever made was my $1 billion gift to the United Nations, which led to the creation of the United Nations Foundation. The United Nations is the only institution with the international scale, reach and capacity to address today’s toughest challenges. If we want to ensure that we leave our children and grandchildren a safe and healthy world, then it is critical for world leaders to support the U.N.’s vital work on voluntary family planning and reproductive health for women across the globe.
People need to shut the fuck up with this pansexual bullshit. It doesn’t exist. It’s just another stupid thing that’s trendy because everyone wants to be unique all of a sudden.
Pansexuality is trying to show that the gender bianry system —implied by the term BIsexual— is shit. A gender binary system is oppressive, it puts people into an assumed box based on their sex organs. By restricting the acceptable behaviors for boys and girls we restrict the adults they will become, and stifle what could be.
Pansexuality is beautiful! A Pan Sexual is a person who has the potential of attraction, no matter how you identify!
I’m not the most articulate person, so if someone can put this into better words they should.
“Society has a problem with female nudity when it is not … ”—Badu pauses to get her words together; she wants this point to be very clear—“… when it is not packaged for the consumption of male entertainment. Then it becomes confusing.”—
if someone is willing to hurt themselves “for attention,”
PAY. THE FUCK. ATTENTION.
When you say someone slicing up their wrists is “just looking for attention,” when you say someone saying they’re contemplating suicide “just wants attention,” hell, beyond that, when someone is consistently getting themselves in huge trouble and acting out and you say they “just want attention,” when any extreme behavior has its causes ascribed to attention-seeking, here is what I see:
I see you looking at someone who just staggered up to you, dust-covered and delirious and dehydration written on every inch of them, and dropped to their knees and begged you for water, offering them anything in return - I see you looking at them and saying “Oh, they’re just thirsty, it doesn’t matter.”
No. Really. That’s what it’s like.
When someone is clearly expressing a desperate need for something physical, whether it’s the above thirsty wanderer or an allergic person pleading with you to grab an epi-pen (more likely), we grant that. We acknowledge the need.
Attention - help - in the above scenarios is a deeply legitimate need. Regardless of any other circumstances at all, anyone willing to go to those extremes is not healthy. Anyone willing to go to such an extreme is not okay. Anyone willing to go to such extremes has a problem, and they need and deserve help with that problem. And that kind of help starts with someone concerned enough and caring enough to pay attention.
If someone’s looking for that, either be that someone, or point them in the right direction. Don’t tell them they’re selfish for searching in the first place.
If you can’t think of a better way to discipline a child, a tiny human who is smaller than you, you need to re-evaluate your approach.
There is NOTHING that a child, who is on the losing end of the power imbalance, can do that warrants striking them. Ever.
Children are an oppressed class of humans. They have no rights, very little protections, and they are among the most vulnerable. Many adults even argue that they don’t have the right to exist in public (which is a very anti-woman argument, but I digress). They are not property, they are people. Full human beings who are looking to you for guidance. You do not have a right to hit another human. It is illegal to strike another adult, so why is it OK to hit a child?
I will not argue with people who justify it. Ever. I have nothing to say to you.
There are some things in this world that are just too fucked up. Child abuse apologizm is one of them.
In a February 12 interview on Canal Plus TV, François Hollande, Socialist Party candidate for president in the upcoming elections, proposed as a “solution” to the presence in France of Roma European Union (EU) citizens “the creation of camps … to accommodate them”.
The association of a “solution” in relation to specific racial groups with special camps can only bring to mind the period of Nazi rule in Europe, during which not only Jews and homosexuals, but also Roma and gypsies were rounded up and sent to extermination camps. This was not lost on many French people.
Hollande called for the establishment of “European rules to avoid our experiencing this constant to and fro [of the Roma]. Let there be camps that we can decide on, that is, to avoid these people settling just anywhere … [to] enable these people to go back to Romania … and not then return to France”.
Put more concretely, the Roma would be rounded up, and after their improvised encampments were broken up, they would be sent back to Romania, the same policy the present right-wing government of President Nicolas Sarkozy is pursuing.
The “Socialist” Hollande’s innovation is to suggest the building of internment camps and then preventing the Roma from returning by some sort of frontier control. Hollande is here attacking the free movement within the EU of these European citizens, one of the few progressive measures European capitalism temporarily conceded in the Schengen agreement in 1985.
Ruling UMP (Union for a Popular Majority) deputies pounced on Hollande’s statement to justify the brutality of the governments’ current policy. On RTL radio, minister for apprenticeship Nadine Morano, a rabid racist, claimed that she was “profoundly shocked” by this “outlandish proposal … We [the government] were the ones who organised the dismantling of the Roma camps with legal procedures, in accordance with French law”, while “Mr. Hollande is proposing the creation of camps for Roma in France.”
An estimated 12,000 to 15,000 Roma, citizens of Romania and Bulgaria, have legally come to France since their countries joined the European Union in 2007. According to the BBC, ten other EU countries, including Germany, Italy, Denmark and Sweden, which also welcomed Roma, are likewise introducing deportation policies. Measures adopted by a number of European states, including France, limit access to work and residence rights for Romanian and Bulgarian migrants until December 12, 2013, when the restrictions will end. It is clear that Hollande would not want to end these restrictions but, rather, extend and reinforce them.
It is difficult to distinguish Hollande’s statements from Sarkozy’s infamous Grenoble speech of June 30, 2010: “We’ll examine the rights and welfare entitlements, currently available to foreigners living in suspiciously irregular circumstances.… The general rule is clear: illegals must be directed back to their own countries”, said Sarkozy. He had already asked the interior minister “to put an end to unauthorized gypsy settlements. These are lawless zones not to be tolerated in France”.
EU commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Viviane Reding accused the Sarkozy government of “discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin or race” and of calling into question “the common values and laws of our European Union”. She described the French policy as a “disgrace”. She implicitly compared the actions of the French government with those of the fascists during the Second World War. In the event, she backed down and Sarkozy has been able to continue with this “disgrace”.
Hollande is currently justifying Socialist Party-dominated town councils’ current practice in relation to Roma settlements. Essonne Info reported that on February 13, his campaign manager Manuel Valls, mayor of Evry, “by a mayoral municipal decree … called on the préfet [police chief] to clear by force the children and their parents and bulldoze their encampment”. There is no report that the mayor offered them alternative accomodation.
Discussion about the closing of frontiers between EU countries flared up in 2011, when Tunisian refugees fleeing state repression and devastated living conditions through Italy were prevented by the French government from crossing the Italian border, where they were legal, into France where many had family and friends.
The announcement of Hollande’s Roma “solution” came only days after the controversy created by Martinique deputy Serge Latchimi, who said that minister of the interior Claude Guéant’s comment that some civilisations were superior to others was close to Nazism. Hollande refused to support Latchimi’s position.
Hollande is appealing to the most backward elements in French society and distancing himself from wide layers of the population deeply opposed to the brutality of the state’s attacks on fundamental human rights.
When accused of being “soft” on illegal immigrants, Hollande likes to cite his election programme: “I will conduct an implacable struggle against illegal immigration … Legal residence will be granted case-by-case on objective criteria”.
The Socialist Party candidate did not offer any criticism of minister of the interior Guéant’s proud achievement of expelling 32,912 undocumented immigrants in 2011, up from 28,026 in 2010, a 17.5 percent increase.
In response to a remark by Sarkozy suggesting that Hollande favoured mass legalisation of undocumented immigrants, the Socialist Party’s Mireille Le Corre, in charge of “immigration-integration” policy, insisted: “François Hollande … is not for carrying out mass legalisations, but for re-establishing a fair and transparent procedure. Foreigners whose circumstances do not comply with a possible legalisation will go through an expulsion procedure, under conditions which respect their rights and their dignity”.
Hollande’s anti-immigrant positions are reinforced by the fact that the entire bourgeois and petty-bourgeois “left”—the Socialist Party, Communist Party, Left Party and New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA)—worked actively with Sarkozy in Islamophobic campaigns to ban the burqa and, before that, the Muslim veil in schools. They are now all mobilising behind Hollande in the presidential elections in April-May to enable the French bourgeoisie to ride out the economic crisis by destroying the rights and living standards of the working class as is now under way in Greece.
I’m becoming increasingly convinced that another European genocide on par with the Holocaust is a real possibility given the current political climate on the continent (and increasingly in parts of the UK as well). It’s going to be Roma and Muslim people who are hit, followed by any other inconveniently brown ethnic group or religious minority.
Anyone who has studied the run up to the second world war knows that a great deal of what is currently flaring up (the economic hardship, the laws prohibiting certain kinds of religious expression, the increasing presence of bigoted racist nut jobs on the political scene who no one takes seriously until OOPS THEY’RE IN POWER) is eerily reminiscent of what happened in the run up to the Nazis implementing their ‘final solution’ in Germany.
People seem so fucking sure that because it happened once so recently it can’t possibly happen again - that attitude is making us complacent. The holocaust isn’t some distant nightmare. It isn’t a symbol or a point of collective catharsis. It isn’t something that just happened in films and on the history channel - it was REAL, millions of people ACTUALLY suffered and died, there are people still alive who remember the concentration camps. If it happened once, it can happen again, and I don’t understand why the prevalence of this kind of hateful xenophobic rhetoric in Europe isn’t setting off more alarm bells. This is how it started the last time.
that is EXACTLY what the “never again” means. It doesn’t mean that it’s not ever going to happen again. It’s a reminder that it can and will happen again if we let it (there was a really good post about this a while back but idk how to find it since I didn’t tag it properly). And, uh, it looks like we’re letting it.
I mean, look at this post. It’s got like…10 notes. 10.
When people treat others who have forms of autism or other mental retardations like they are worth nothing.
the sweetest people I know have autism, Aspergers syndrome, or mild mental retardation. they have a child-like mind and are the absolute best people to be around. They can teach you that life is not a big rush, and to slow down and enjoy the simple things of life.
I would honestly see the world through their eyes than my own. their mindset is that everything wonderful and has an upside. I love it. I would love to have an autistic child when I grow up despite the struggle it is.
Next time you see someone who has a mental retardation, a form of autism, or a form of Aspergers, treat them with respect. they are beautiful people and deserve to be treated just as well as we do.
Have a lovely day.
I wish I could give you a cookie for effort, but frankly, I can’t. I can give you the cracker of “Meh, you tried”, though:
Just, for future reference, your first sentence grammatically concludes that autistics are retarded. And that it’s insulting to tell us we have child-like minds and that we are always positive, because I am PROBABLY one of the biggest, most depressing downers you’ll ever meet. This is called the “Autistic Angel” stereotype and it’s just that — a stereotype. Please don’t fall for this again.
WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT
Jesus OP could you be any MORE patronizing?
"I would love to have an autistic child when I grow up" omg what the effing eff
As you may have noticed, there’s been a post going around the ASoIaF/GoT fandom asserting that those fans who have taken it upon themselves to call out problematic statements they see in the tags are running a dictatorship of sorts, in which there are definitive rules about which characters you’re allowed to like and dislike. In particular, the comments appended to the post as it circulates seem to be directed at stans of Cersei, Catelyn, and Sansa, who are characterized as over-zealous, ready to categorize any dislike of their favorites as sexism.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that yes, discussion has gotten heated on both sides, even to the point of some uncalled-for mudslinging. And yes, unprovoked or misplaced meanness is hurtful and unproductive. But what is worrying to me is that these comments seem to be identifying the entire mode of discussion as in the wrong—the calling out of isms is characterized as oppressive, fun-killing, and (this is the one that really gets me) unnecessary.
In fact, one of the most-reblogged comments states that the group of people actually making problematic statements is “probably only a few people large anyway.”
I don’t know how much people reblogging this post have interacted with portions of the fandom outside of tumblr, but there is a damn good reason the tumblr climate is the way that it is.
(trigger warning: discussions of sexism, violence against women, rape, domestic violence, and general grossness)
ALSO SPOILERS FOR THE BOOKS
This is the fandom where new actresses are constantly scrutinized on the basis of their appearances (the w-i-c comments on Michelle Fairley’s casting are, on a balance, horrid) with the justification of “book purity,” while the men in the cast are praised even if they completely contravene the original descriptions (Tyrion and Jorah being the two most egregious examples).
This is the fandom where criticism of Cersei is almost exclusively couched in gendered terms like “cunt,” “whore,” “slut,” and “bitch,” rather than substantive commentary on her villainy. Where her husband’s domestic abuse and marital rape is often celebrated because it’s “what she deserves.” Moreover, she receives this intense hatred where Jaime, who is textually the same person (one person in two bodies, if I were a woman I’d be Cersei, reflections in a mirror, it’s stated in the text over and over and over again) is almost universally adored.
This is the fandom where towerofthehand.com did a poll (a poll! way more than one or two people!) of most hated characters and Catelyn Stark placed above Ramsay Bolton (yes, this was before ADwD, but let us not forget that he had already forced Lady Hornwood into a marriage, locked her in a tower, and starved her until she ate her own fingers in desperation). Some fun excerpts from that essay (emphasis mine):
bad mother … whining … in front of her brother Edmure’s men, she reproaches him for having some fun with the ladies and later chastises him for hoping the woman he’s going to spend the rest of his life with doesn’t look like a weasel … she witnesses the assassination of (as far as she knows) her last surviving son, goes mad, and is finally put out of her misery—and ours … there are no happy endings, so she is brought back to us, worse than ever, as Lady Stoneheart. We haven’t seen much of her since her resurrection, but just knowing that we’re not completely rid of her rankles us … we thank the gods every day that she hasn’t returned for further emoting as a POV character, and can also take some solace in the fact that Ser Raymund did a reasonably good job on her vocal chords
This is the fandom where I, when expressing love for Catelyn among a group of my rl friends, was shouted down, told she is endlessly annoying and for that crime didn’t suffer enough.
This is the fandom where Sansa, one of the sweetest, most morally good characters in the books, consistently receives some of the most vitriolic hate I’ve seen in any fandom. A sampling (all from different people, ftr):
YOU LITTLE WHINY BITCH. That little whore has no substance. … [in response to a gif of her being beaten and stripped in front of the court] I hate her though, so it’s fine. … vapid, needy, helpless … a total bitch sometimes (because of her ignorance mostly)
The hate for Sansa is so palpable that Sophie Turner actually commented on it at a panel, saying (again, emphasis mine):
A lot of people do dislike Sansa, and they dislike her from the books so I guess I’m doing my job, hopefully well? But sometimes the dislike goes a bit too far and people say horrible things about Sansa that they want to happen to her. Sometimes it goes too far, and it upsets me because then I kind of feel like, “Am I making her too annoying?” Like, people want to kill her? Really? So, um, it hurts.
An isolated group of a few people? No. THIS IS SO WIDE-SPREAD THAT A CHILD ACTOR NOT ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, BUT WAS HURT BY IT.
And there, ladies and gents, is the point. Baseless, gendered, and yes, sexist hatred is a widespread and ongoing problem in this fandom, and it hurts. It hurts the actresses, who work hard to portray complex, multi-layered women only to see them reduced to “sluts” in the general discourse. It hurts the fandom, who absorb and then perpetuate conceptions of femininity that have no room for ambition (bitchy), sexual freedom (whorish), anger (even more bitchy), traditionally “girlish” characteristics (shallow), idealism (stupid), or a whole host of other traits that, when taken in total, comprise basically all available options. It especially hurts those who have suffered similar insults for the crime of being a woman, and who see in these characters things they admire and/or relate to.
The ASoIaF fandom has a long and storied history of creating a toxic climate of sexism, often culminating in calls for gruesome violence against the female characters. I’m not sure why I even have to say it, but this is a problem. This is harmful. So the response to people calling you out on contributing to that climate really shouldn’t be “stop ruining our fun!” I don’t know about you, but my fun gets ruined when someone says an 11-year old girl deserves torture and humiliation as a punishment for her naivete.
Trying to guilt into silence those people who have fought long and hard against what I would argue is the dominant mode of discourse in this fandom is part of the problem. It’s a tactic used just as often by those who have made problematic statements as those who haven’t. Yes, some people have been mean. But other people have been deeply, horrifically problematic, and even more people have casually validated the language and tone of their arguments by adopting their words, indicating even vague agreement, or even just ignoring the issue and thus condoning their actions.
Um… this sentiment (whether about guys or girls) is truly vile.
Jealousy isn’t a manifestation of love. It’s a disease. It says “I think I should own you, and I can’t trust you.”
Jealousy is the opposite of faithfulness. Jealousy is about fear and anger. Faithfulness says “I trust you and I know we’re together even when I don’t have my eye on you; and you can trust me no matter what.”
Being faithful is not about the fear of losing something. It’s about being something that can’t be lost.
I hate, hate, hate having to do this. But earlier this week, as you may have noticed, I had a severe manic episode, more than my bipolarity has ever caused before. And my psychiatrist has commanded that I double my dosage of Abilify. My fucking most expensive medication, Abilify. As in going from $180 copay WITH INSURANCE that I had budgeted for to $360 that I do not have. And I am running out of my current refill in 18 days.
There are plenty of people who are in greater need, and I will also be doing some sales in real life, which hopefully my new squareup reader will make more profitable. I have the option of asking my psychiatrist for alternate medications (though that makes me frightened of having to be hospitalized again if it goes wrong) or begging my parents for more money. I hate to do that if I can possibly avoid it, because they’ve had to deal with their house being flooded, Grandma’s house being flooded, and Grandma now needing chemo.
I can’t donate plasma; I don’t qualify. My attempts to get strangers to send me money in exchange for stripping over webcam have not been particularly successful, though I may just need to refine my technique (the money getting, I mean, I dirty talk great). I do Elance work, but right now given my health issues it’s hard enough to keep up with homework. I will talk to the pharmacy tomorrow to discuss whether we can go for a smaller dose for now, and then wait until I earn more.
You are not my only hope, and do not feel bad if you cannot help. I just feel like some of you would feel hurt if out of the loop.
My Etsy store currently has a coupon, HEART4HEART, that will get you 40% off. Take a look and pimp if you so desire. No obligation and many apologies for my consistent fail.
Hey followers! Geeknip is one of my very best friends and she’s also a super fantastic and amazing person. I would appreciate it SO MUCH if you could help her out. Even if you can’t afford to buy anything, a signal boost would mean a lot! Please help!!
A restaurant in Knoxville, Tennessee refused to serve state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R), the man who sponsored the state’s “don’t say gay” bill, compared homosexuality to bestiality, and most recently told Michelangelo Signorile that it’s virtually impossible to spread HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex. “I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against,” the Bistro at the Bijou wrote on its Facebook wall on Sunday. The restaurant has received an overwhelmingly positive response.
“Stop being so negative!” “You choose to be sad” “You don’t even have anything to be sad about” “There are millions worse off than you, just get a grip!”
People struggling with self-harm:
“You’re just doing it for attention!” “Those cuts aren’t even that bad” “You don’t even have a reason to cut/burn yourself” “You freak! Hide your scars, no one wants to see those disgusting things”
People that attempt suicide/are suicidal:
“You’re so sefish!” “You don’t care about anyone but yourself” “Don’t you realize what this would do to your Mum/Dad/Family/Friends. You need to think about other people and not just yourself” “Just get over it. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and just get on with life”
People suffering from Anorexia Nervosa:
“JUST EAT!” “You’re just doing this to hurt others” “There are children dying of starvation and you’re just choosing not to eat, that’s so selfish” “If you don’t start eating you won’t —- (stay over at your friends this weekend, get your allowance, etc)
People suffering from Bulimia Nervosa:
“Ew! That is so gross!” “Just stop eating too much!” “I’ll take all your money off you so you can’t buy binge food” “I’ll lock the bathroom door to stop you purging”
SURVIVORS of Rape, Sexual Abuse, Molestation and Incest:
“You probably asked for it/insinuated it/gave permission” “You’re lying/I don’t believe you/(s)he wouldn’t do that” “Just get over it already! It’s in the past!” “That is so disgusting. Aren’t you ashamed? I wouldn’t tell anyone if I were you…”
Victims of Bullying
“Just stick it out. They’ll give up soon enough” “Well maybe you’ve pushed them to it” “Don’t stick up for yourself or tell anyone ‘cause it’ll make it worse” “Who cares? They’re not even being that harsh… You’re lucky compared to some people!”
Victims of Domestic Abuse
“Maybe you did something to provoke them?” “Just fight/argue back” “Get out of there! You’re doing this to yourself the longer you stay there” “A lot of people have it worse than you…”
Victims of emotional trauma/abuse
“Maybe you should just do as they ask, then they won’t get angry” “Just ignore them” “What they’re saying doesn’t matter. Stop letting it affect you” “You’re just too sensitive”
People struggling with general/social anxiety
“You’re just socially awkward” “Why would anyone be afraid of that?” “If you don’t want to hang out with me anymore, just tell me straight! Don’t make up all this crap about being anxious” “Just get over it!”
Most common ‘insult’ that is misunderstood:
“Attention-seeker” - Ever been called that? When you’re struggling with any of those things above, or similar things and someone calls you an “attention seeker”, it can be like being stabbed in the stomach and feeling the knife twisting.
After years of people calling me an attention seeker, I will admit that just this week, I was called it and it hurt… But here’s the thing: We are ALL attention-seekers. Attention is a human NEED. So why do people insist on making us feel guilty about that? Why do people insist on making it out to be a bad thing, that only selfish people seek? Each and every one of us seek, or at least long for, attention.
But when you’re struggling with depression, self-injury, an eating disorder, or any mental health illness, “attention seeker” seems to pop up again and again. Why does this hurt those people more than it would hurt someone else, if we all seek attention? Because when you have a mental illness, there’s an underlying issue(s) that made it develop. It could be a whole bunch of contributing factors, or just one thing so huge, that they have to reach out for it, in any way they can, in order to survive.
I need you to just stop for a moment, and think about those times when you’ve needed attention. The times you’ve been angry and needed someone to rant to. The times you’ve been sad and needed someone to tell you it’ll all be okay. The times you’ve felt alone and desperately needed someone to spend time with you. What if, in the very midst of those strong feelings, someone called you an “attention seeker” and told you to just get over it? What if you’d spent years upon years dealing with things on your own, and the moment you broke the silence and had the courage to speak out about your suffering, someone told you to “sit down and shut up, and stop seeking attention”. Can you just imagine what that would do? Now imagine that happening to someone who has already been starved of love, doesn’t know acceptance, has never heard encouragement, never experienced trust, or is just in so much inner turmoil that they feel they need someone to listen and notice they’re struggling, and someone tells them to keep their mouth shut because no one cares.
I just want you to know that “attention seeker” needs to stop being an insult. We ALL need attention: it’s just a basic human need, and right, that we receive it - in a positive way, of course. I need you to realize that by using that as an insult, you’re stripping the already-vulnerable and hurting of their courage and strength to speak out and receive help. You’re pushing them into their silent suffering even further. Those two simple words could result in another scar on someone’s skin, another day without food, or another life lost.
Don’t ever, ever underestimate the power of your words. Words are more powerful than any of us will ever be able to comprehend. So today, I’m asking that you use your powerful words to spread love, encouragement and hope instead of encouraging self-hate.
“It’s not that Chris Brown is categorically unforgivable. It’s more that he’s no longer an acceptable vehicle for corporations to use to sell products to young adults. On a human level, I’m more than willing to eventually forgive Chris Brown, once he seems genuinely remorseful and changed (which, at this point, he definitely does not). But there’s no obligation to continue supporting him as a pop star. Chris Brown would not exist without millions of dollars of production and marketing and styling and whatever else. He’s not some troubled genius that exists on his own, creating pop music in a corner. He’s just a handsome and fit guy who can dance and sing pretty well. There are plenty of other people who are more than capable of filling that role and who haven’t beat a woman into a state of unconsciousness. Why not give one of them a chance to be rich and famous instead?”—
Why the fuck can’t more people understand this?? We went through the same goddamn thing with Michael Vick and all those rapist athletes (OH LOL WAIT NEVERMIND NONE OF THEM WERE EVER CONVICTED BECAUSE THEY WERE PROBABLY ALL WHITE GUYS OOPS MY BAD), and people just cannot seem to understand the difference between forgiving someone/giving them another chance and throwing millions of fucking dollars at them.
If you beat your girlfriend into unconsciousness or systematically abuse animals or are a fucking rapist you can maybe get another chance at life once you’ve served your time and shown ample evidence that you recognize your cosmic screw-ups and want to do whatever you can to repent for them. YOU SHOULD NOT GET ANOTHER CHANCE AT BEING A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER OR A FAMOUS POP STAR. FULL STOP.
so this next rant was going to be about BDSM and kinky shit like that but it’s exhausting and stupidly long and I need to go to bed
I think I’ll just finish it later
and maybe once I’ve had some time to stop freaking out I’ll actually be able to write something that isn’t a zillion pages long and actually makes sense instead of just being RAARGHLBLARGLAALSKDJFSADLKJFLAGOHGROHAGRNSGAKW YOU SUCK AT FEMINISM AND I HATE YOU
Rant 1: Girls are like goddamn human beings, not fucking apples, you assholes
So this evening I went to my weekly knitting class. I’m the youngest person there by a long shot, so I always feel a bit like the odd one out, but it’s always a pretty good time anyway. Except today one of the knitters started talking about the poetry unit she’s teaching in her 6th grade English class and the “shape poem” she found that she just loves and shows to her students every year.
And the problem is, this is the poem she was talking about:
Oh. My. God. The worst part was that all the other knitters backed her up. They just couldn’t stop talking about how sweet it was and what a nice sentiment it was and I was just sitting there silently at the table with my hands shaking and my heart rate through the roof trying to decide whether to let it go or give them a lecture or just fucking walk out.
Where do I even start? Let me try to list out a couple of the things that are astonishingly offensive about this poem.
Um, total erasure of queer identities, much? Boys want girls, and vice versa. What are the gays???
Hooray, slut shaming! The apples at the bottom of the tree are easy and rotten. Holy sweet jesus what the fuck. Yeah, because female sexuality is rotten and gross, and filthy sluts who have the temerity to make themselves available to boys are just consolation prizes for those who are too lazy to go for the Good Girls (tm), or practice rounds who deserve to be dumped immediately the moment something better comes along. Girls aren’t allowed to seek sexual agency or experience sexual pleasure on their own terms, because that means they’re easy.
Also, your ~*~..::*Purity*::..~*~ is a magical and special flower just waiting to be plucked by The Right Guy. But watch out! You don’t want to lose it! Because it’s the only measure of your worth as a human being, and if you’re not careful with it you’ll turn in to a whore. That’s okay, thought, because as long as you have it, you’re the best apple on the tree!
My favorite is that this poem frames female sexuality and the entire female experience in terms of male desire and achievement. Girls are passive objects who have no agency and no choice. They just wait for the “right guy” to come and “pick” them. If they wait long enough, they might be lucky enough to be awarded to the strongest and bravest boys who climb to the top of the tree and deign to select them. In essence, girls aren’t individual human beings with goals and desires and motives beyond the need to be attached to a boy. They exist only in the context of male personal development.
She’s teaching this to her sixth graders who are all probably right at the beginning of puberty and just starting to deal with all this freaky stuff about sexuality and establishing identity and she’s emailing it to a youth group leader who wants to share it with all her kids and this horrible heteronormative misogynist garbage is what these kids are being exposed to a crucial stage of development and I can just feel the weight of all our society’s hateful, destructive patriarchal baggage dropping onto the backs of the next generation and oh god nothing ever, ever changes and why do we even try
“We’re glad to have him back,” said executive producer Ken Ehrlich. “I think people deserve a second chance, you know. If you’ll note, he has not been on the Grammys for the past few years and it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened.”
Here is what this quote says to any woman who’s ever been abused:
By blacklisting Chris Brown from the Grammys for a “few” years (actually, a grand total of TWO Grammy Awards), the Grammys have gone above and beyond expectations for the social exile of an adult man who hit his girlfriend so hard she went to the hospital, and honestly it was really, really hard for them to show even that much support for victims of domestic violence worldwide.
It was rather thoughtless of Rihanna to go and get herself hit in the face by her boyfriend, because it’s put such a burden on the Grammys. Maybe if she hadn’t made such a big fuss out of it, things could have been easier for everyone.
The Grammys think that they were the victim of Chris Brown hitting Rihanna in the face.
“We – the grown-up influencers in this country, the people with platforms and with educations and with power — are allowing a clear message to be sent to women: We will easily forgive a person who victimizes you. We are able to look beyond the fact that you were treated as less than human, that a bigger, stronger person decided to resolve a conflict with you through violence. We know it happened, but it’s just not that big of a deal to us.”
“If you are a white woman and you want to call yourself a feminist, you must acknowledge that your whiteness affords you a privilege that shields you from a lot. You must also acknowledge that you are afforded privileges that some men in this country do not have. Racism and sexism are tightly intertwined. You cannot fight one while ignoring the other.”—ladyatheist (via mamaatheist)
“Stewart is often a target of a specific kind of body policing: the “smile, baby” requirement. When she appears on the red carpet and does not assure us with her teeth that she is simply thrilled to be reduced to a presence, a dress, a posture, she is often the target of harassment for her expression.
Despite the fact that this attention is often negative and always demanded, despite the fact that it drives her to tears, appreciation of this harrassment is demanded. Graciousness is an obligation on Stewart’s part because people are looking at her. The implication for women is that attention is a sign of our value; if we are not attracting it, particularly from men, we are worthless. If we’re harassed and ordered to smile, we’re lucky. We must be grateful for all attention, even that which we find unpleasant. Or we are bitches.”
You know I was married for 23 years to the love of my life, and he died six years ago. And I think of all the years we had, and the wonderful fringe benefit of having three beautiful children. I don’t miss the sex, you know? And to me that’s kind of what this boils down to. I don’t miss that. I mean, I certainly miss it, but I don’t, it’s not — (Laughter from chambers) — it is certainly not the aspect of that relationship, the incredible bond that I had with that human being, that I really, really, genuinely wish I still had.
And so I think to myself, how can I deny anyone the right to have that incredible bond with another individual in life? To me, it seems almost cruel.
You know, years ago, my daughter went to, she was in elementary school. Many of you have met my daughter. She’s a fabulous girl. She’s wonderful. My boys are great too, but my daughter is just something special, and she was the light of her father’s eyes. And she went to school and there were some kids that were, a whole group of kids that were picking on another kid. And you know, my daughter stood up for that kid, even though it was not the popular thing to do. She knew it was the right thing to do. And I was never more proud of my kid, knowing that she was speaking against the vocal majority on behalf of the rights of the minority.
And to me, it is incumbent upon us as legislators in this state to do that. That is why we are here, and I shudder to think that if folks who had proceeded us in history did not do that, frankly I’m not sure I would be here as a woman. I’m not sure that others would be here due to their race, or their creed. And to me, that is what’s disconcerting.
And someone made the comment that this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why in the world would we not allow those equal rights for individuals who truly were committed to on another in life to be able to show that by way of a marriage?
You know, my daughter came out of the closet a couple of years ago. And you know what? I thought I was going to just agonize about that.
Nothing’s different. She’s still a fabulous human being, and she’s met a person that she loves very much. And someday, by God, I wanna throw a wedding for that kid. And I hope that’s exactly what I can do. I hope she will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a ‘domestic partnership’ — which frankly sounds like a Merry Maids franchise to me.
Dear New Jersey governor Chris Christie and others in the Republican Party who continue to demonize those who want marriage equality: this is what courage, and not cowardice, looks like. This is what it sounds like when you choose not to run away from your responsibility to govern and ensure equal rights for all people.
Evolutionary psychology is sexist, racist, cissexist, ableist, and heterosexist.
This includes evolutionary psychology that (supposedly) supports atheism.
Supporting evo-psych means
You have not done your homework, or
You are prejudiced.
Other people’s clothing is not your business.
Including religious articles of clothing.
Including hijabs, headwraps, niqabs, burkas, crosses, crucifixes, pentacles, and other symbols.
Even if you really don’t like it.
Even if it’s really religious.
Acknowledge other people’s identities.
Even if you’re uncomfortable with them.
Especially if you’re uncomfortable,
Because they have racial, sexual, cultural, or disabled identity
Paganism is not ‘atheism-lite’.
Neither is agnosticism.
Neither are indigenous religions.
There is no such thing as ‘ironic’ bigotry.
Unless it’s atheists whining about Christmas.
Seriously, I thought only evangelicals did that.
Trans people are not your special little puzzles.
Neither are autistic / disabled people.
I don’t care if you’re a scientist. We’re still not your Rubik’s Cubes.
Not everything should be about science.
There. I said it.
PoC are not the reason why a lot of people are wary of atheists.
It’s because of white/het/cis/CND atheists.
Yes, including you.
Demanding people educate you is oppressive.
Even if you’re ‘being really nice about it’.
Nice =/= good.
Religions are not inherently oppressive.
Did you know that hijabs and niqabs are cultural?
And that many women find them liberating?
Using emotion in writing, reasoning, the internet, or decision-making does not mean one is stupid/dumb/monkey-like/less-evolved/other ableist, racist, eugenicist terms.
It means one is a fucking human being.
Disability is not a flaw in evolution.
Disabled people will not die out with evolution.
Being atheist does not mean you are automatically not allistic.
If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
You can use Google.
Being a queer atheist does not make you white.
Seriously, enough with this racist bullshit.
Cultural appropriation is also done by atheists.
Deal with it.
There are no purple people.
You should know this.
Making fun of ‘them crazy darkies doin’ their ridick voodoo’ is racist, ableist, and the reason why a LOT of black atheists will not have anything to do with you.
Satire is a tool that works when aimed upwards, at the most powerful people.
Black people are not the most powerful people.
Especially black people practicing voodoo.
No religion is more ridiculous than any other.
…but some have more power, and are therefore better to make fun of.
Being colorblind is only okay if you literally cannot see or distinguish colors.
Otherwise, it’s racist.
Religions derive strength and power from the social power of their followers.
Which is why evangelical Christianity is a better target than Black Christianity.
Being an agnostic (or bisexual) is not ‘taking the easy way out’.
Monosexism is real.
How do I know?
You’re doing it right now.
And yes, queer can be a term for polysexual.
If you think black people are mean to you,
You’re probably white,
And won’t say you are
Because white people never say they’re white.
The terms ‘hermophradite’ ‘third sex’ and ‘biological gender’ are
And not up for debate.
If you refuse to identify your privileged identities,
I’m going to assume you just think you’re ‘normal’
And moderate you.
Refusing to acknowledge the power of environment and social structure
And means you’re a biological essentialist.
Intersex people exist.
Deal with it.
And no, they are not ‘miracles of evolution’.
I thought you didn’t believe in miracles.
Freedom does not just mean ‘freedom to be an atheist and make the choices I would make’. It means freedom to make even choices I don’t like.
Including religious choices.
Social justice / social uprooting / anti-oppression is not about you and your feelings.
Nobody cares about white guilt.
Making everything about your feelings is oppressive.
If you’re offended,
Get over it.
Realize that being offended is much better than being oppressed.
Reblogging again because THE WHOLE THING.
Not sure I understand/agree with the thing about evolutionary psychology…? I think I need more context on that one.
Evolutionary psychology is just a field of science. I know it can be and has been used to promote really, really shitty things, and is probably more prone to that than many other fields of science given that it deals with the functioning of the human mind, but that doesn’t make it inherently evil field of study. I mean, should we put a moratorium on all genetics research because it gave rise to eugenics? That would be absurd.
I will say that EP is a pretty new field, so a lot of it is total bullshit, and a lot of that bullshit is really fucking horrible. But I feel like that can be the case with almost any new field: it gives us a whole new framework for understanding things but lacks rigor and adequate fleshing-out, and people basically use it as a playground for their prejudices. That doesn’t mean the very idea of studying how our brains are adapted to our environment is sexist, racist, cissexist, ableist, and heterosexist…
It guess this is something I need to more homework on.
I totally agree that slut shaming is awful, and the implication that a woman who shaves her business is in some way shameful should rightfully be stomped out. HOWEVER. I can't say with absolute certainty, but I think the "fucking creepy" comment might have more to do with the idea of removing all the hair leaning toward the prepubescent look, and infantilizes women. I don't know Daniel Radcliffe (unfortunately), but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's less slut shaming than infantilization.
You have a good point, and in general I’m willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in interviews, where you don’t really have time to organize your thoughts and make sure everything comes out right. I’m sure Dan is an upstanding guy overall, and I certainly don’t think he’s a terrible woman-hating monster for saying a few things that I find problematic.
And it IS possible that the intended subtext of his statement was, “it’s fucking creepy because it is associated with a damaging cultural framework that fetishizes youthfulness in women to the point of sexualizing features of pre-pubescence, which is tied to a long history of treating female children as commodities to be traded amongst adult men, particularly via arranged marriages, as a means of gaining material goods or improving one’s social status. The perceived attractiveness of a lack of pubic hair is subtly but deeply linked to the idea that women are fundamentally, regardless of age, sexual objects that exist for male use and gratification. Obviously it is not my business what a woman chooses to do with her pubic hair, and it would be extremely misogynistic of me to shame anyone, particularly my sexual partners, for their personal choice. However, for the previously stated reasons I do not personally find hairlessness attractive, so it is something I hope a long-term female partner would be open to discussing (though of course I would ultimately defer to her decision).”
But when someone says “I don’t like girls with nothing down there either… it freaks me out… it’s fucking creepy,” the subtext I hear is “I happen to have preferences that differ from what is perceived to be the norm and/or are ostensibly in line with certain feminist values. This means I can police and make judgements about women’s bodies and no one will call me on it. This means I can pretend to support feminist values while actually ensuring that potential partners present themselves in ways that are based first and foremost on my sexual tastes rather than on their own freedom of self-expression and sexual autonomy.”
Whatever he intended, given the cultural context in which we exist, the second meaning is the one that is relevant because it is essentially the default and therefore the one we must assume was implied (even if unconsciously and not maliciously). People can say hurtful and horrible things without having bad intentions, but you know what they say about the road to hell. What matters is the impact of our statements, not our intentions, and that is what we have to deal with.
“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”—Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt (via jessethorn)
“This kind of faux concern about teenage girls and sexual activity has nothing to do with keeping girls safe. It’s about legislating morality and ensuring that someone—whether it be a parent, husband, or the state—is making decisions for young women. Because god forbid we make them ourselves.”—Jessica Valenti, Full Frontal Feminism (via ellielamothe)
Imagine, if you will, a small house, built someplace cool-ish but not cold, perhaps somewhere in Ohio, and inhabited by a dog and a lizard. The dog is a big dog, something shaggy and nordic, like a Husky or Lapphund – a sled dog, built for the snow. The lizard is small, a little gecko best adapted to living in a muggy rainforest somewhere. Neither have ever lived anywhere else, nor met any other creature; for the purposes of this exercise, this small house is the entirety of their universe.
The dog, much as you might expect, turns on the air conditioning. Really cranks it up, all the time – this dog was bred for hunting moose on the tundra, even the winter here in Ohio is a little warm for his taste. If he can get the house to fifty (that’s ten C, for all you weirdo metric users out there), he’s almost happy.
The gecko can’t do much to control the temperature – she’s got tiny little fingers, she can’t really work the thermostat or turn the dials on the A/C. Sometimes, when there’s an incandescent light nearby, she can curl up near it and pick up some heat that way, but for the most part, most of the time, she just has to live with what the dog chooses. This is, of course, much too cold for her – she’s a gecko. Not only does she have no fur, she’s cold-blooded! The temperature makes her sluggish and sick, and it permeates her entire universe. Maybe here and there she can find small spaces of warmth, but if she ever wants to actually do anything, to eat or watch TV or talk to the dog, she has to move through the cold house.
Now, remember, she’s never known anything else. This is just how the world is – cold and painful and unhealthy for her, even dangerous, and she copes as she knows how. But maybe some small part of her thinks, “hey, it shouldn’t be like this,” some tiny growing seed of rebellion that says who she is right next to a lamp is who she should be all the time. And she and the dog are partners, in a sense, right? They live in this house together, they affect each other, all they’ve got is each other. So one day, she sees the dog messing with the A/C again, and she says, “hey. Dog. Listen, it makes me really cold when you do that.”
The dog kind of looks at her, and shrugs, and keeps turning the dial.
This is not because the dog is a jerk.
This is because the dog has no fucking clue what the lizard even just said.
Consider: he’s a nordic dog in a temperate climate. The word “cold” is completely meaningless to him. He’s never been cold in his entire life. He lives in an environment that is perfectly suited to him, completely aligned with his comfort level, a world he grew up with the tools to survive and control, built right in to the way he was born.
So the lizard tries to explain it to him. She says, “well, hey, how would you like it if I turned the temperature down on you?”
The dog goes, “uh… sounds good to me.”
What she really means, of course, is “how would you like it if I made you cold.” But she can’t make him cold. She doesn’t have the tools, or the power, their shared world is not built in a way that allows it – she simply is not physically capable of doing the same harm to him that he’s doing to her. She could make him feel pain, probably, I’m sure she could stab him with a toothpick or put something nasty in his food or something, but this specific form of pain, he will never, ever understand – it’s not something that can be inflicted on him, given the nature of the world they live in and the way it’s slanted in his favor in this instance. So he doesn’t get what she’s saying to him, and keeps hurting her.
Most privilege is like this.
A straight cisgendered male American, because of who he is and the culture he lives in, does not and cannot feel the stress, creepiness, and outright threat behind a catcall the way a woman can. His upbringing has given him fur and paws big enough to turn the dials and plopped him down in temperate Ohio. When she says “you don’t have to put up with being leered at,” what she means is, “you don’t ever have to be wary of sexual interest.” That’s male privilege. Not so much that something doesn’t happen to men, but that it will never carry the same weight, even if it does.
So what does this mean? And what are we asking you to do, when we say “check your privilege” or “your privilege is showing”?
Well, quite simply, we want you to understand when you have fur. And, by extension, when that means you should listen. See, the dog’s not an asshole just for turning down the temperature. As far as he knows, that’s fine, right? He genuinely cannot feel the pain it causes, he doesn’t even know about it. No one thinks he’s a bad person for totally accidentally doing harm.
Here’s where he becomes an asshole: the minute the gecko says, “look, you’re hurting me,” and he says, “what? No, I’m not. This ‘cold’ stuff doesn’t even exist, I should know, I’ve never felt it. You’re imagining it. It’s not there. It’s fine because of fur, because of paws, because look, you can curl up around this lamp, because sometimes my water dish is too tepid and I just shut up and cope, obviously temperature isn’t this big deal you make it, and you’ve never had to deal with mange anyway, my life is just as hard.”
And then the dog just ignores it. Because he can. That’s the privilege that comes with having fur, with being a dog in Ohio. He doesn’t have to think about it. He doesn’t have to live daily with the cold. He has no idea what he’s talking about, and he will never, ever be forced to learn. He can keep making the lizard miserable until the day they both die, and he will never suffer for it beyond the mild annoyance of her complaining. And she, meanwhile, gets to try not to freeze to death.
So, quite simply: don’t be that dog. If you’re straight and a queer person says “do not title your book ‘Beautiful Cocksucker,’ that’s offensive,” listen and believe him. If you’re white and a black person says “really, now, we’re all getting a little tired of that What These People Need Is A Honky trope, please write a better movie,” listen and believe her. If you’re male and a woman says “this maquette is a perfect example of why women don’t read comics,” listen and believe her. Maybe you don’t see anything wrong with it, maybe you think it’s oh-so-perfect to your artistic vision, maybe it seems like an oversensitive big deal over nothing to you. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES, YOU HAVE FUR. Nevertheless, just because you personally can’t feel that hurt, doesn’t mean it’s not real. All it means is you have privilege.
That’s not a bad thing. You can’t help being born with fur. Every single one of us has some kind of privilege over somebody. What matters is whether we’re aware of it, and what we choose to do with it, and that we not use it to dismiss the valid and real concerns of the people who don’t share our particular brand.
The Fundiegelical: “You may think you’re ‘happy’ by wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, but you’re living in sin and you’re going straight to hell! Jesus loves you.”
The “Enlightened” Liberal: “But gender doesn’t even matter, because deep down, we’re all the same. So why is it such a big deal what I call you?”
The TERF: “By embracing a gender role opposite your assigned sex, you are reifying gender/privilege and thus making it that much harder for us to smash gender. I know that sounds contradictory but, if you’d been a feminist for as long as I have, you’d understand.”
The Proto-TERF: “Of course I don’t have anything against trans people, but abortion/sex work/breast cancer/ovarian cancer/whatever is and has always been a women’s issue! Why do you want to take it away from women?”
The Ungendering Fetishist: “Hey, I don’t have anything against sh*m*les! I think you’re hot! I watch sh*m*le porn all the time.”
The Clueless Oppression-Olympian: “Transness is just a white/abled/Western issue, so why should I care about it?”
The Incrementalist: “Look, people just aren’t ready to accept trans folks yet. So instead of arguing about what pronouns to use for you, we should focus on something we can actually accomplish, like [insert other tenuously-related SJ cause here].”
The Genital-Focused: “I totally respect and support trans people, but I would never date one. Because ewww.”
The Broad-Stroke Painter: “I once met a trans person who was selfish/mean/creepy/bad in general, so you’re all like that and I won’t respect any of you.”
The Inveterate Essentialist: “But… you can’t be a woman, because you have a PENIS! And chromosomes! And… a PENIS!”
The What-About-Teh-Cis Whiner: “I know my refusal to call you ‘she’ hurts you, but you have to understand that your demand to call you ‘she’ hurts me, too. What about my feelings?”
The Pig-Headed “Skeptic”: “Do you have actual evidence that you’re really a woman? No, of course you don’t, because it’s impossible by definition. No, shut up; I’m right and you’re wrong, PERIOD.”
The “Free Speech” Whiner: “Don’t you think that, in the spirit of free and open discussion, you should listen to my side of things instead of just dismissing it out of hand as ‘bigotry’?”
The Devil’s Advocate: “I’m not saying prejudice is right, but, to be fair, it is a little weird for someone to present as a woman and yet have a penis.”
The Self-Proclaimed “Ally”: “How dare you say I’ve been cissexist? Don’t you know how very supportive I’ve been of you and your causes? Why aren’t you grateful?”
The “Edgy” Comedian: “Look, it was a joke. I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand why it’s funny; I guess I’m just too edgy for you. Maybe one day, when you grow up a little, you’ll stop trying to censor humor.”
(Hint to cis people: don’t do any of these things.)
I don’t know, you guys. I’m really at a loss here. I can’t find my self-respect. It seems I have misplaced it. Here’s a photo of me with my self-respect fully intact:
See? Look at how happy I look? I’m fully clothed and you can just see the self-respect radiating off of me.
But somewhere in between that picture being taken and this picture being taken….
My self-respect seems to have vanished… And I’m getting really worried because I’m starting to think I’ve become a little bit of a slut? I looked up the symptoms of being a slut and I have them all:
sudden awareness of control over one’s body
sudden awareness of control over one’s sexuality
sudden awareness of control over one’s sex life
sudden awareness of rights over one’s mind and body
consensually taking part in sexual activities with one or more partners
And I won’t even go on with the list because there are just too many symptoms that prove that I’ve become a slut :( I really don’t know what happened. Ever since I lost my self-respect, my life has just become an abyss and I’ve just become this really terrible person with a really terrible life and I just want to find my self-respect so I can once again lead a fulfilling life. I want to be pure once more. I want to feel whole.
Please, if you have any information of any sort on where my self-respect might have gone, feel free to call me at 1-800-INTERNALISED-MISOGYNY
“Since her death in 1979, the woman who discovered what the universe is made of has not so much as received a memorial plaque. Her newspaper obituaries do not mention her greatest discovery. […] Every high school student knows that Isaac Newton discovered gravity, that Charles Darwin discovered evolution, and that Albert Einstein discovered the relativity of time. But when it comes to the composition of our universe, the textbooks simply say that the most abundant atom in the universe is hydrogen. And no one ever wonders how we know.”—
Jeremy Knowles, discussing the complete lack of recognition Cecilia Payne gets, even today, for her revolutionary discovery. (via moonsafaris)
“You have probably never heard of British-born Cecilia H. Payne (later Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin), who in 1923 came to the United States to study stellar spectra at the Harvard College Observatory. In a remarkably short time, Payne managed to quantify and classify the stellar spectra in the plate collection at the Observatory, arriving at the startling conclusion that stars are “amazingly uniform” in their composition, and that hydrogen is millions of times more abundant than any other element in the universe. Her doctoral dissertation, Stellar Atmospheres (1925), demonstrated her theory concerning the chemical composition of stars and earned her the first doctoral degree ever offered to either man or woman by Harvard’s astronomy department. A few years later, Otto Struve, an eminent astronomer, called it ‘the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written’” - Dara Horn