markdoesstuff
panasonicyouth:

glamourweaver:

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

layersoflife:

wifwolf:

nativeamericannews:

Native History: When Hawaii Was Riding the Wave Toward Sovereignty
This Date in Native History: Hawai‘i is relearning that it’s not a state—it’s a sovereign kingdom. According to political scientist Dr. Keanu Sai, actions are slowly underway that will disassemble its illegal relationship with the United States, established when the U.S. named Hawai‘i a state on August 21, 1959. Sai and many others are leading the movement for the return of the Hawaiian Kingdom, supported by International Law.
 Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/21/native-history-hawaii-riding-wave-towards-sovereignty-150963

PLEASE READ THIS, YOU GUYS

This is really important. 

“Imagine being kidnapped and told you were adopted, then finding out there are no adoption papers”

Noteworthy history, but I can’t take any such current movement seriously without polling data. I’m not defending the annexation, but if a substantial majority of the populace consider themselves Americans, want to be Americans, etc, than that is what matters now.
So I’d like yo see data on the whole populace’s view and the indigenous population specifically.

It’s a good thing this movement doesn’t need your solitary validation to be taken seriously
what the FUCK, this is gross.

I watched a thing a while ago that talked about how for specific action, small groups can usually affect change faster and more thoroughly than large ones can. Just saying.

panasonicyouth:

glamourweaver:

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

layersoflife:

wifwolf:

nativeamericannews:

Native History: When Hawaii Was Riding the Wave Toward Sovereignty

This Date in Native History: Hawai‘i is relearning that it’s not a state—it’s a sovereign kingdom. According to political scientist Dr. Keanu Sai, actions are slowly underway that will disassemble its illegal relationship with the United States, established when the U.S. named Hawai‘i a state on August 21, 1959. Sai and many others are leading the movement for the return of the Hawaiian Kingdom, supported by International Law.


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/21/native-history-hawaii-riding-wave-towards-sovereignty-150963


PLEASE READ THIS, YOU GUYS

This is really important. 

“Imagine being kidnapped and told you were adopted, then finding out there are no adoption papers”

Noteworthy history, but I can’t take any such current movement seriously without polling data. I’m not defending the annexation, but if a substantial majority of the populace consider themselves Americans, want to be Americans, etc, than that is what matters now.

So I’d like yo see data on the whole populace’s view and the indigenous population specifically.

It’s a good thing this movement doesn’t need your solitary validation to be taken seriously

what the FUCK, this is gross.

I watched a thing a while ago that talked about how for specific action, small groups can usually affect change faster and more thoroughly than large ones can. Just saying.

lil-miss-choc

lil-miss-choc:

moderndorothy:

….y’all need to see this. like the best thing ever.

i applaud collegehumor. FOUR FOR YOU!

I was going to rage about this article, then I read it.

I died with joy!

osheamobile

elfgrove:

treblemirinlens:

Captain Marvel stole the spotlight on the cover of the Money section of USA Today! The paper devoted the better part of two pages to an article about the need for more superheroines in the movies. Nothing most of us didn’t already know, but it’s exciting to see it get attention!

Dear DC Comics and Marvel,

Even mainstream media is starting to go WHAT THE FRILLY HOCKEY STICKS about the lack of female leads. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

While they’ve got you thinking, maybe some non-white heroes in more prominent roles too, or do you want to wait until it’s so glaringly absurd that a national paper gets over the fear of discussing race to call you on that shit too?

Honestly, pull your heads out of your asses.

This is one of the most inspiring things I have seen out of media in months. Look at them being interesting and sorta-kinda-iffily inclusive!

gingerfeminist
sapphrikah:

fatanarchy:


In order to enjoy a marginal piece of dignity once enjoyed by Americans, travelers can now pay the TSA $85.00 to “trust” them and not subject them to the same degree of harassment that everyone else endures while trying to travel.  The TSA’s “PreCheck” program is expected to reap in about $255 million in 2013 alone. Those enrolled in the ‘trusted traveler’ program don’t have to remove their shoes, jackets and belts during screening. Members can also keep their laptop computers and approved liquids in their bags.  After stealing your RIGHTS, they attempt to SELL them back to you as PRIVILEGES. Papers, please!
http://rt.com/usa/tsa-precheck-program-launch-437/

As usual, the poor are the suspects; the poor are the criminalized. If you have money, you can get away with anything…

How is this not OBVIOUSLY criminalization and discrimination? They are virtually saying if you can afford to spare $85, you probably aren’t doing anything illegal.
WHAT THE FUCK.

BUT THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICA. RICH WHITE PEOPLE TOLD ME SO. THIS IS JUST THE TSA TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR OBAMA’S INABILITY TO BUDGET OR SOMETHING. THIS IS SUPER NECESSARY. AND HELPFUL.

sapphrikah:

fatanarchy:

In order to enjoy a marginal piece of dignity once enjoyed by Americans, travelers can now pay the TSA $85.00 to “trust” them and not subject them to the same degree of harassment that everyone else endures while trying to travel.

The TSA’s “PreCheck” program is expected to reap in about $255 million in 2013 alone. Those enrolled in the ‘trusted traveler’ program don’t have to remove their shoes, jackets and belts during screening. Members can also keep their laptop computers and approved liquids in their bags.

After stealing your RIGHTS, they attempt to SELL them back to you as PRIVILEGES. Papers, please!


http://rt.com/usa/tsa-precheck-program-launch-437/

As usual, the poor are the suspects; the poor are the criminalized. If you have money, you can get away with anything…

How is this not OBVIOUSLY criminalization and discrimination? They are virtually saying if you can afford to spare $85, you probably aren’t doing anything illegal.

WHAT THE FUCK.

BUT THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICA. RICH WHITE PEOPLE TOLD ME SO. THIS IS JUST THE TSA TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR OBAMA’S INABILITY TO BUDGET OR SOMETHING. THIS IS SUPER NECESSARY. AND HELPFUL.

paradoxicaldarkling

Here’s a situation every woman is familiar with: some guy she knows, perhaps a casual acquaintance, perhaps just some dude at the bus stop, is obviously infatuated with her. He’s making conversation, he’s giving her the eye. She doesn’t like him. She doesn’t want to talk to him. She doesn’t want him near her. He is freaking her out. She could disobey the rules, and tell him to GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM HER, and continue screaming GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME every time he tries to step closer, or speak to her again. And then he will be all, “I was just talking to you! WTF!” and everybody else will be all, “Yeah, seriously, why’d you freak out at a guy just talking to you?” and refuse to offer the support she needs to be safe from dude. Or, the guy might become hostile, violent even. Ladies, you’ve seen that look, the “bitch can’t ignore me” look. It’s a source of constant confusion, as soon as you start budding breasts, that the man who just a moment ago told you how pretty you are is now calling you a stupid ugly whore, all because you didn’t get in his car.

OR

You could follow the rules. You could flirt back a little, look meek, not talk, not move away. You might have to put up with a lot more talking, you might have to put up with him trying to ask you out to lunch every day, you might even have to go out to lunch with him. You might have to deal with him copping a feel. But he won’t turn violent on you, and neither will the spectators who have watched him browbeat you into a frightened and flirtatious corner.

So we learn the rules will protect us. We learn that, when we step out of line, somebody around us might very well turn crazy. Might hurt us. And we won’t be defended by onlookers, who think we’ve provoked the crazy somehow. So, having your ass grabbed at the bus stop, having to go out to dinner with a guy you fucking can’t stand, maybe even having to fuck him once or twice, it’s a small sacrifice to avoid being ostracized, insulted, verbally abused, and possibly physically assaulted.

It’s a rude fucking awakening when a woman gets raped, and follows the rules she has been taught her whole life — doesn’t refuse to talk, doesn’t refuse to flirt, doesn’t walk away ignoring him, doesn’t hit, doesn’t scream, doesn’t fight, doesn’t raise her voice, doesn’t deny she liked kissing — and finds out after that she is now to blame for the rape. She followed the rules. The rules that were supposed to keep the rape from happening. The rules that would keep her from being fair game for verbal and physical abuse. Breaking the rules is supposed to result in punishment, not following them. For every time she lowered her voice, let go of a boundary, didn’t move away, let her needs be conveniently misinterpreted, and was given positive reinforcement and a place in society, she is now being told that all that was wrong, this one time, and she should have known that, duh.

For anybody who has ever watched the gendered social interactions of women — watched a woman get browbeaten into accepting attention she doesn’t want, watched a woman get interrupted while speaking, watched a woman deny she is upset at being insulted in public, watched a woman get grabbed because of what she was wearing, watched a woman stop arguing — and said and done nothing, you never have the right to ever ask, “Why didn’t she fight back?”

She didn’t fight back because you told her not to. Ever. Ever. You told her that was okay, and necessary, and right.

You didn’t give her a caveat. You didn’t say, “Unless…” You said, “Good for you, shutting up and backing down 99% of the time. Too bad that 1% of the time makes you a fucking whore who deserved it.”

Nobody obtains the superpower to behave dramatically differently during a frightening confrontation. Women will behave the same way they have been taught to behave in all social, professional, and sexual interactions. And they will be pretty goddamned surprised to come out the other end and find out that means they can legally be raped at any time, by just about anybody.

http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/another-post-about-rape-3/ (via seebster)

everything about that fucking article. everything.

thinksquad

*anger*

thinksquad
thinksquad:

Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals
The Dutch justice ministry has announced it will close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty.
http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals

naloth: way to go Netherlands, way to make us look bad…
me: ahahahaaa…. that requires absolutely nothing on their part.

thinksquad:

Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals

The Dutch justice ministry has announced it will close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty.

http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals

naloth: way to go Netherlands, way to make us look bad…

me: ahahahaaa…. that requires absolutely nothing on their part.

tedx

How to feed an entire conference with local food? Ask the crowd!

tedx:

imageTEDxSydney’s crowd-farmed feast (Photo: TEDxSydney)

This year, the team at TEDxSydney took on a seemingly impossible task: feed 2,200 people with only the food grown in their own backyards. There was fear; there was trepidation; there were even pigs; but, in the end, the mission was successful.
image
Michael of Milkwood Farm with his contribution to TEDxSydney 2013

How did they do it? With a lot of volunteers, a lot of vegetables, and — surprisingly — a lot of honeybees. And why? A year ago, a group of enterprising Sydney DIYers decided to throw a giant dinner party comprised of dishes cooked completely from “community-harvested” food — food sourced from people whose farms are on windowsills and balconies, in backyards and neighborhood blocks. The dinner served as the launch party for Grow it Local, an online community dedicated to mapping and supporting the non-traditional farms of Sydney’s citizens, allowing urban gardeners to add their “patches” to a giant collaborative map, and share advice and tips with one another.
imageLocally-grown goods take over TEDxSydney (Photo: TEDxSydney)

Remo Giuffre — the curator of TEDxSydney and an urban gardener himself — attended the dinner and decided that in 2013, TEDxSydney had to work with Grow it Local for something special. “As a local,” he said, “I was at that original dinner in 2012 … and I remember loving the cozy community vibe. It was my idea to try to bring that vibe to TEDxSydney 2013.”

Read More

socio-logic

gradientlair:

It is not a coincidence that the knowledge, perspectives and skills (obtained through degrees) that directly correlate to the betterment, uplift and empowerment of marginalized groups in a White supremacist capitalist patriarchal society are also the degrees often deemed “useless.” It is not a coincidence that other than medicine (and not because of the “care of life,” but because of how it is so amazingly profitable for the health insurance industry and other business industries—not even speaking of doctors here), any life, health, education or social/cultural knowledge-reaffirming degree or job is often deemed purposeless and assigned a low value in dollars (salary, the only way that value is measured in a White supremacist capitalist patriarchal society).

As I tweeted:

We live in a society that conveys the message that studying people and their cultures is stupid and “useless,” but studying to own the companies that make and sell the objects of mass consumption that some of these same people make (often as slave labor or low-paid labor) is “purposeful.” And, we (including me—I, like every other person in the U.S., has goods made overseas) profit from it.

Studying business and economics today (especially within a frame that serves to protect the status quo) is often labeled as “purposeful.” Studying, for example, how the slave trade in the U.S. directly correlated to economic productivity and war in the 19th century, is deemed “useless.” Too much “race,” “humanities” and “cultural studies” are involved in the latter. The “purpose” evaporates if someone wants to examine how the American economy as is, is simply not possible without exploitative labor at its base and slave labor in its history. Too much “race” and “humanities” stuff.

Does it not seem even remotely ironic to some Black people (who seem to have no fear of sub-prime loans, upside down mortgages, and expensive car notes) that their student loan fears seems to scare them more than any other debt? Why is this debt more frightening than debt over objects (again, where studying the creation/production/ownership of these objects is deemed more important than studying the people who create them) that are foreclosed on and repossessed, in a way that an education cannot be? It’s because it is marketed as something to fear, while debt over consumption, or consumption itself, is not. (I know Black people with low-paying jobs, due to lack of education, who have astronomical debt from consumption, yet even $1000 in student loans frightens them. I do wonder if it is a smokescreen in order to stay away from school because of built up fear and discouragement over facing microaggressions and stereotype threat in their K-12 years, or simply being unprepared because they attended a poor-performing high school that ignored their needs.)

Do Black people understand that the sheer existence of more STEM jobs versus social science and art jobs bears zero correlation on actually acquiring one of these jobs? You’re still Black when you apply (whether your name is Sharon or Shemika). And, as I’ve watched many friends, this knowledge that is deemed “purposeful” did not make getting hired in these fields easier simply because more jobs exist in these fields or that these jobs are deemed socially “worthy” and rewarded with a higher income. It meant that they had more places to send a resume—not that they had an easier time get hired.

Even one of the most brilliant (Black) scientific minds, Neil deGrasse Tyson revealed his respect for the humanities during a talk about his book, Space Chronicles - The New Frontier. Someone asked him if historians (History…you know…one of the degrees often called stupid or “useless,” since it usually falls under the arts side of arts and sciences at universities) are important to society since he knows scientists are. deGrasse Tyson said this:

If you don’t know the conduct of humans and what motivates them and the relationships between nations, then go back home, you’re not useful out there if you want to bring real solutions to real problems. Historians are really important in this, particularly historians who put things in context rather than just re-tell a timeline of events. Context matters. Attitudes matter. Cultures matter.

And…are Black people going to continue to fetishize Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg? Our stories will no more be their stories than their stories will be Trayvon Martin’s or Troy Davis’.

As I tweeted:

These three messages are consistently portrayed to us and then eventually by/between us:

1) Education debt is the worst and scariest debt, so pursue consumption debt, on a lower paid job (due to lack of education), and skip education altogether.

2) Skip college altogether since it works out for exceptional cases of people marketed as products (Black celebrities) or privileged White males in technology. (Americans, in general, love exceptions, special cases, celebrities, flukes, magic and other remnants of exceptionalism).

3) If you couldn’t be convinced to avoid or drop out of college…well then…major only in whatever is deemed “useful” and appropriate by a White supremacist capitalist patriarchal system. Evaluate education and degrees in a simplistic way: i.e. the Blueology major must be a Blueologist at Blue Inc., or he/she is not “using” their degree.

When the same people who control a White supremacist capitalist patriarchal society are the ones controlling the hiring (down to rejecting hairstyles, zip codes, and “ethnic names”) and are the same ones deciding what degree is valuable, the correlations can’t be ignored. If they decide that anything not of interest to (usually White) men individually or White supremacist capitalist patriarchy itself, has no purpose, and punish people for making educational choices outside of what currently serves a market that has no social or cultural loyalty to or interest in the greater need of social justice, then the “useless” label is really a social construction to exclude whatever can create a threat to the status quo.

If Black people are going to smile and nod and agree that anything on these “useless degree” lists are in fact “useless,” at least know WHY we are agreeing, and what this word “useless” is really conveying.

(I’m definitely not saying that post-secondary education itself doesn’t need a makeover in some areas and deconstruction/reconstruction in others. This post isn’t about how to reform schools, the cost of schools, 2 year/4 year state schools vs. proprietary schools etc., but about recognizing the source of some of the labeling in  regards to education in its existing form.)

*chills*

minionier

crackerhell:

alexandraerin:

mattbellamysfolds:

“if i’m a person of color, i’m allowed to hate white people!!!!’

“if i’m gay, i’m allowed to hate straight people!!!!”

“if i’m a woman, i’m allowed to hate men!!!”

“if i’m trans*, i’m allowed to hate cis people!!!”

image

The problem with this post—one of the problems with this post—is what we might call the logic of allowance. In point of fact, the reverse of those statements is true across the board.

White people are allowed to hate people of color, and we do, with wide-reaching results. Straight people are allowed to hate gay people, and they do, with wide-reaching results. Men are allowed to hate women, and they do, with wide-reaching results. Cis people are allowed to hate trans* people, and they do, with wide-reaching resutlts. These hatreds are allowed, encouraged, supported, and upheld on systemic and personal levels. 

The “reverse hatreds” being cited with such gleeful derision (this is hateful post, by the way… whether you agree with its sentiments or not, this post mocks people and kicks them when they’re down and I’m very disappointed to see a blog that I don’t think of as hateful reblogging it) aren’t actually allowed. They aren’t tolerated. They are slapped down. Just observe on Tumblr how a person of color who is not suitably deferential to white people… and this is a moving goalpost, often an invisible goalpost that is erected on the fly specifically to pounce on and victimize a particular blogger… observe how they get treated. Observe the reaction to trans* people who don’t bow to cis sensibilities.

And some might say “WELL WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE DIE CIS SCUM OR DEMAND WHITE PEOPLE EXPLAIN WHY THEY’RE FOLLOWING YOU”, but here’s the thing: those things are reactions. And I’m sure the person who made this post and everyone who co-signs it would say “well, those reactions are just as bad as the actions they’re a response to”.

First of all, they’re not, on any level. You might believe in your heart of hearts that they’re not good, but there’s a severe imbalance of power and a resulting imbalance in effect. If a tractor trailer hauling several tons of cargo has a head-on collision with a smart car… well, we could say that they both hit each other. But that descriptor tells us nothing about the aftermath.

Or to use a better example: a pedestrian gets struck in the crosswalk by a car. Might the pedestrian have looked both ways or exercised more care to avoid the accident? Yes, possibly. But the impact of the car on the pedestrian matters more than the impact of the pedestrian on the car, a fact which is actually recognized by law.

Second… if they’re just as bad, well, then why do so many ~*good progressives*~ expend so much time and energy addressing only half of the problem? You can believe that two wrongs don’t make a right, but by addressing the second wrong, you’re implying that one wrong is just hunky-dory. And the wrong you seek to redress says a lot about the actual values that guide your hand.

You could say hate isn’t a Christian value. How about recognizing when someone is in pain and giving them balm? Is that a Christian value? Is it a Christian value to see a scream of rage and frustration and blame the person who gave vent to it?

Jesus might as well have said “I was powerless and you did not empower me, I was defenseless and you did not protect me, I was marginalized, and you did not center me.” when he spoke of physical hunger and thirst.

The hatred society directs at “the least among us” is lethal; the hatred reflected back is an embarrassing reminder of the cloud of hostility and threats society forces them to live under. That’s why we’re so uncomfortable with the latter, even as we blithely accept all but the most blatant and egregious examples of the former, and try to rationalize away or deny what we can’t ignore.

why shouldn’t I be allowed to hate people who are trying to kill me again i’ve never gotten a good reason for this

I know at least two of the people following me have agreed with the OP in the past few weeks, and while I immediately got upset and wanted to explain to them why and how they were wrong, I could not. I could not put the words in the right order so that they did not sound incoherent and discombobulated.

so I said nothing. :/ 

thankfully for everyone, THIS just popped up on my dash. 

tl;dr - go back to the top and read it anyways no excuses, folks.

lyssamae

lyssamae:

tahlalaliaaa:

^

*red flag*

*RED FLAG*

There is nothing more alarming than white anarchist/leftist men undermining/disregarding/”critiquing” safer spaces policies.

If you meet someone like this in your political circle - you get the fuck away from them. They are either exasperating and exhausting company because you’ll always be explaining to them why they’ve just been an oppressive dickhead for the hundredth time. Or they are abusers looking to dismantle the small safety nets and systems of accountability we have tried to build around us. Yikes.

So here’s why thinking safer spaces and trigger warnings are bullshit is bullshit, directed at anyone who agrees with the post linked to above. Don’t complain about the length, this is me taking the time to reeeaallly explain it to you so you can’t act clueless about it  anymore. It’s always the people less likely to need trigger warnings and enforced safer spaces that complain about them so consider this your education.

First off - of course exposure therapy helps people like that blogger who has OCD - but it should be done under supervision of a doctor/therapist or at least preplanned by the individual - like when they want to be exposed, how often and how far along the scale of extremity someone wants to have exposure to. Removing all trigger warnings or not letting people know beforehand that a conversation/situation might be triggering does not give them the choice to be exposed to things or the chance to decide if they can handle it right now. Exposure therapy is a gradual thing so trigger warnings help people avoid something that is too big a jump in their recovery, therefore TWs are still valid and useful if you do believe everyone should be doing that.

Which brings me to my second point - if you do believe everyone should be doing that you’re a total asshole.

While I understand the blogger has OCD and that this must affect them a lot and make life incredibly difficult - they cannot compare their OCD with other people’s trauma especially from things like rape or drug addiction. They cannot apply their way of dealing with things to everyone else because, even if their OCD is ruining their life on the same scale as how being sexually assaulted or drug dependent has ruined someone elses, their experiences are totally different.

Also this might be a bit of a shock to those who are convinced people should “get over it” - but exposure therapy is not applicable to every fucking problem under the sun. Do you have any experience of being around people with drug and alcohol addictions? Do you think it’s okay to expose some addicts to the substance they’re addicted to or to talk in detail about how fucked you got on it in front of them? No. So we create safer spaces where drugs are not consumed publicly, we ask first if we can talk about it and we do what we can to prevent causing that little twinge of “maybe I could have one beer/line and it’ll be ok ” in people who we care about but can’t stand to watch destroy themselves anymore.

Do you think a rape victim  should have to see their rapist all the time hanging out in supposedly radical circles where we supposedly challenge sexism and rape culture and interpersonal hierarchies? No? Removing safe spaces policies means this will happen. Do you think a victim should be reminded vividly of the worst experience of their life unless they are ready for that? No? Removing trigger warnings means this will happen.

We still need these because, guess what asshole, some things are just too painful and will not go away. I cannot stress this point enough. This is fundamentally why we disagree because I understand this fact and you and so many white men (the demographic most sheltered from the trauma of gendered and racial violence might I add) refuse to understand it or are somehow incapable. I mean do you think someone can do exposure therapy to get over the trauma of racism when they’re also experiencing it again and again anyway? Do you think exposure therapy and ‘getting over it’ works for long term trauma for daily oppression just like it works for a one off traumatic experience or for a disorder like OCD? Get real!

Sometimes it takes years before someone is ready to begin any kind of recovery - so what about protecting them from further damage in the mean time? Sometimes people are too broken down, too exhausted, too changed by trauma to be able to face things head on in this macho way and that’s alright actually.

It’s okay that we don’t push ourselves to handle what we can’t. It’s okay that some of us might never be able to handle certain things ever again  - as long as we are still living and fighting. Some wounds don’t heal fully and all we can do is tend to them for the rest of our lives so they don’t get deeper. This is valid, whatever you say. If you still think everyone should be doing some kind of exposure therapy, you have a long way to go before you’re able to think outside your own experience and understand that people have needs that don’t mirror your own and that these needs are still valid even though they aren’t the same as yours.

I understand why the blogger who has a serious disorder might object to seeing people use trigger warnings for things that aren’t linked to that because that is their main association with it - but the fact that people have expanded the use of trigger warnings beyond it’s original medical use is only a useful thing in my eyes.

This is not appropriating it as a “fashion accessory” or using it to indicate you have a disorder that you want to parade around. This is applying a useful system in a more widespread way so that more people will benefit from having the choice to be exposed to certain things. Maybe online people get over zealous and warn for everything under the sun - but so what? It’s doing the opposite of harming people. Just because fewer people are triggered by something doesn’t mean it’s less valid, doesn’t mean it downgrades the importance of trigger warnings in general (I’d like to reassure the original blogger it doesn’t) and just because something isn’t linked to a diagnosed-by-doctor medical disorder doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the ability to traumatise/upset/trigger someone.

Think for a moment: If you advocate doing something that potentially harms more people than helps - like ignoring safer spaces and abolishing TWs - and would rather complain about the ways people have tried to help each other then what does that say about you and your outlook on the world and how you relate to other human beings? No really, have a little soul search right about now.

AND FINALLY the tired old argument of “the world isn’t a safer space anyway”

YEAH. WE KNOW. WE LIVE IN IT BRO.

People deal with sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and ableism daily. Sometimes people want a place they can go to where they can have a break from it, organise together with clearer heads. You’ll find political organising goes better when we all stop oppressing each other. We’re not hiding from it - we’re used to real life being utterly shit and full of bigots and face up to it all the time in very real ways. In fact many of us are tougher than you for dealing with systematic oppression the likes of which you’ll never experience. So don’t act like we’re wrong to demand a time and place to have a break from it if we want. Give us the respect we deserve because really you don’t know shit about how real life can be for some people.

“There should not need to be a “space” where people are “safe” from sexual assault, bigotry or whatever, it is running away from the problem, and does not address why the rest of it is unsafe.” - is the funniest most out of touch bullshit in the whole blog post.

Unfortunately there does need to be a space where people are safe from assault because that’s the sorry state of the world right now. Welcome to reality - we have to actively enforce a space to gather where we won’t tolerate being raped and oppressed. Also we know full well why the rest is unsafe and suggesting otherwise is completely patronizing. People dedicate a lot of their time thinking about/discussing/fighting against why it’s unsafe. Just because you weren’t there and rarely think about it anyway doesn’t mean those conversations and political actions haven’t happened. We are not running away from the problem if we refuse to associate with rapists and bigots. We’re at least trying to build an alternative here. What are you doing?

“You do not deal with racism, anti-semitism, sexism etc by setting up a “safe space” where these things are supposed not to happen. You deal with it by challenging it.” This blogger lacks so much insight, this last quote barely makes sense. We are confronting oppression head on by:

  • not allowing such behaviors to appear and thrive in our groups
  • calling out oppressive behavior and trying to educate individuals
  • physically removing harmful racist/sexist etc individuals from the space if needs be
  • physically harming harmful racist/sexist etc individuals if needs be
  • trying to raise and spread consciousness on why these things are wrong to society in general

Not tolerating all these forms of oppression is the first step to challenging them. No space can be completely safe because even someone with the best intentions can be an asshole unintentionally but it’s not about creating an oppression-less vacuum where we can all hide from the real world, it’s about creating and promoting a culture where people don’t let it go unnoticed and unchallenged and deal with it directly there and then in non-abstract ways.

An excellent post about why this blog post is bullshit.

socio-logic

sociolab:

What Herndon had discovered was that by making a sloppy computing error, Reinhart and Rogoff had forgotten to include a critical piece of data about countries with high debt-to-GDP ratios that would have affected their overall calculations. They had also excluded data from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia — all countries that experienced solid growth during periods of high debt and would thus undercut their thesis that high debt forestalls growth.

Herndon was stunned. As a graduate student, he’d just found serious problems in a famous economic study — the academic equivalent of a D-league basketball player dunking on LeBron James. “They say seeing is believing, but I almost didn’t believe my eyes,” he says. “I had to ask my girlfriend — who’s a Ph.D. student in sociology — to double-check it. And she said, ‘I don’t think you’re seeing things, Thomas.’”

And here is his paper:  Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogo

Well then. That’s interesting.

rapeculturerealities

Here’s a situation every woman is familiar with: some guy she knows, perhaps a casual acquaintance, perhaps just some dude at the bus stop, is obviously infatuated with her. He’s making conversation, he’s giving her the eye. She doesn’t like him. She doesn’t want to talk to him. She doesn’t want him near her. He is freaking her out. She could disobey the rules, and tell him to GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM HER, and continue screaming GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME every time he tries to step closer, or speak to her again. And then he will be all, “I was just talking to you! WTF!” and everybody else will be all, “Yeah, seriously, why’d you freak out at a guy just talking to you?” and refuse to offer the support she needs to be safe from dude. Or, the guy might become hostile, violent even. Ladies, you’ve seen that look, the “bitch can’t ignore me” look. It’s a source of constant confusion, as soon as you start budding breasts, that the man who just a moment ago told you how pretty you are is now calling you a stupid ugly whore, all because you didn’t get in his car.

OR

You could follow the rules. You could flirt back a little, look meek, not talk, not move away. You might have to put up with a lot more talking, you might have to put up with him trying to ask you out to lunch every day, you might even have to go out to lunch with him. You might have to deal with him copping a feel. But he won’t turn violent on you, and neither will the spectators who have watched him browbeat you into a frightened and flirtatious corner.

So we learn the rules will protect us. We learn that, when we step out of line, somebody around us might very well turn crazy. Might hurt us. And we won’t be defended by onlookers, who think we’ve provoked the crazy somehow. So, having your ass grabbed at the bus stop, having to go out to dinner with a guy you fucking can’t stand, maybe even having to fuck him once or twice, it’s a small sacrifice to avoid being ostracized, insulted, verbally abused, and possibly physically assaulted.

It’s a rude fucking awakening when a woman gets raped, and follows the rules she has been taught her whole life — doesn’t refuse to talk, doesn’t refuse to flirt, doesn’t walk away ignoring him, doesn’t hit, doesn’t scream, doesn’t fight, doesn’t raise her voice, doesn’t deny she liked kissing — and finds out after that she is now to blame for the rape. She followed the rules. The rules that were supposed to keep the rape from happening. The rules that would keep her from being fair game for verbal and physical abuse. Breaking the rules is supposed to result in punishment, not following them. For every time she lowered her voice, let go of a boundary, didn’t move away, let her needs be conveniently misinterpreted, and was given positive reinforcement and a place in society, she is now being told that all that was wrong, this one time, and she should have known that, duh.

For anybody who has ever watched the gendered social interactions of women — watched a woman get browbeaten into accepting attention she doesn’t want, watched a woman get interrupted while speaking, watched a woman deny she is upset at being insulted in public, watched a woman get grabbed because of what she was wearing, watched a woman stop arguing — and said and done nothing, you never have the right to ever ask, “Why didn’t she fight back?”

She didn’t fight back because you told her not to. Ever. Ever. You told her that was okay, and necessary, and right.

You didn’t give her a caveat. You didn’t say, “Unless…” You said, “Good for you, shutting up and backing down 99% of the time. Too bad that 1% of the time makes you a fucking whore who deserved it.”

Nobody obtains the superpower to behave dramatically differently during a frightening confrontation. Women will behave the same way they have been taught to behave in all social, professional, and sexual interactions. And they will be pretty goddamned surprised to come out the other end and find out that means they can legally be raped at any time, by just about anybody.

Harriet J, http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/another-post-about-rape-3/ (via seebster)

this article is one of the best I’ve ever seen on rape culture. period. 

lyssamae

lyssamae:

By AMY CHENEY

I found this today in my daughter’s room. My daughter is seven. It was innocently sitting on the floor amongst the Polly Pockets, friendship bracelets and a variety of other crap seven-year-olds love to hoard.

Diyet. Jesus.

Where did she learn the word diet? How does she even know what a freaking diet is?

Whose fault is this? Is it mine because I let her play with Barbies? Because sometimes she’s allowed to watch Total Drama Action? Is it because when I draw with her I can only draw stick figures?

Seventeen Poosh-ups two times a day.

I felt sick. Physically ill. Like someone had knocked the air from my chest.

I could feel myself getting increasingly anxious the more words I was able to interpret from her seven-year-old spelling.

Three Appals, One Per, Two Keewee Froots.

How did this happen?

I am smart about this stuff. I have a degree in early childhood studies. Our family focuses on andpromotes healthy eating and healthy bodies. Our attitudes are reasonable and balanced. Weight has never been an issue in our home – it is, for the most part, irrelevant.

Read More

Not okay. Not okay. Not okay. Not okay. Not okay.

disquietingtruths

8 Reasons Young Americans Don’t Fight Back: How the US Crushed Youth Resistance

disquietingtruths:

  1. Student-Loan Debt.
  2. Psychopathologizing and Medicating Noncompliance.
  3. Schools That Educate for Compliance and Not for Democracy.
  4. No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top.”
  5. Shaming Young People Who Take EducationBut Not Their SchoolingSeriously.
  6. The Normalization of Surveillance.
  7. Television.
  8. Fundamentalist Religion and Fundamentalist Consumerism.

Read More

Click the link.

I kept saying “Yeeeeeeeeeeeees” and “Exaaaaaaaaactly!!!”