eshusplayground

For All Those Who Were Indian in a Former Life by Andy Smith, 1991 

Indian religions are community-based, not proselytizing, religions. There is not one Indian religion, as many New Ager’s would have you believe. Indian spiritual practices reflect the needs of a particular community. Indians do not generally believe that their way is “the” way, and consequently, they have no desire to tell outsiders about their practices. A medicine woman would be more likely to advise a white woman to look into her own culture and find what is liberating in it.

However, white women seem determined NOT to look into their own cultures for sources of strength. This is puzzling, since pre-Christian European cultures are also earth-based and contain many of the same elements that white are ostensibly looking for in Native American cultures. This phenomenon leads me to suspect that there is a more insidious motive for white “feminists” latching onto Indian spirituality.

When white “feminists” see how white people have historically oppressed others and how they are coming to very close to destroying the earth, they often want to dissociate themselves from their whiteness. They do this by opting to “become Indian.” In this way, they can escape responsibility and accountability for white racism.

Of course, white “feminists” want to become only partly Indian. They do not want to be part of our struggles for survival against genocide; they do not want to fight for treaty rights or an end to substance abuse or sterilization abuse. They do not want to do anything that would tarnish their romanticized notions of what it means to become an Indian.

Moreover, white women want to become Indian without holding themselves accountable to Indian communities. If they did, they would have to listen to Indians telling them to stop carrying around sacred pipes, stop doing their own sweat lodges, and stop appropriating our spiritual practices. Rather, these New Agers see Indians as romanticized gurus who exist only to meet their consumerist needs. Consequently, they do not understand Indian people or our struggles for survival, and thus they can have no genuine understanding of Indian spiritual practices.

notesonascandal

(tw:rape) The thing about white feminists and their “man vs. woman” binary that disturbs me so much is that it doesn’t take into account how factors like colonialism, (which derives from white supremacy) have shaped the current gender relations in the third world. Men who perpetuate colorism by stating blatantly discriminatory practices in their dating preferences? That’s residual effects of colonialism. That’s whiteness infiltrated from degrading the dark and promoting the light. The simultaneous hypersexualization and desexualization of women of color? That’s residual effects of colonialism. That’s Sarah Baartman and being displayed as a mere prop for white men to get off to. The gender wage gap? That’s western neocolonialism and corporatism, in addition to misogyny and sexism that says women of color aren’t made to be paid for labor, which ultimately goes into white bank accounts and benefits white societies, both men and women.

That’s why I sort of just laugh hysterically when I see white feminists purport women like Chandra Mohanty and Alice Walker as “betrayals” to their cause. No, you betrayed us long ago when you allowed your white men to rape us, subjugate us, enslave us, taunt us and brutalize our communities and eradicate our traditions and cultures. We’re just daring to say “hey, those things that you blatantly ignored? They’ve molded us as women and our experiences differently and we won’t allow for those differences to be ignored in favor of upholding the “women experience”, which doesn’t exist, by the way”.

Men of color do harm women of color, but the ultimate point is, so does everyone else. The man vs. women dichotomy doesn’t do anything but try to shift blame from one guilty party to another.

My friend Khajidah  (via eastafrodite)

mmm snaps

(via darkjez)

Yep.

(via notesonascandal)
diasporicroots
womenwhokickass:

Vivienne Malone Mayes: Why she kicks ass
She earned a B.A. (1952) and M.A .(1954) in Mathematics at Fisk University.
She is the fifth African-American woman to receive a Ph. D. in Mathematics (University of Texas-Austin). 
She was the first Black woman to serve on the executive committee of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM).
She served on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM).
In 1966, she became the first Black faculty member at Baylor University, the institution which had rejected her, with an explicit anti-black policy, as a student only five years previously. She spent her teaching career there until she retired in 1994 because of ill health.
She was heavily involved in anti-racist picketing; her articles situate her academic struggles within the broader anti-racist movement. 
She served on the Board of Directors for Goodwill Industries, the Board of Directors for Family Counseling and Children, the Texas State Advisory Council for Construction of Community Mental Health Centers, and the Board of Directors of Cerebral Palsy.
In 1971, the Baylor Student Congress elected Mayes Outstanding Faculty Memeber of the Year.
She was very successful, although she initially faced much opposition in studying mathematics; in her first undergraduate class she was the only Black person and the only woman and she was denied a teaching assistantship even though she was an experienced (13 years) and excellent teacher. 
Her Ph.D. thesis was entitled “A structure problem in asymptotic analysis.” Part of this work was published in the Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, v. 22 (1969) under a different title. (Later her research interests shifted to summability theory).

womenwhokickass:

Vivienne Malone Mayes: Why she kicks ass

  • She earned a B.A. (1952) and M.A .(1954) in Mathematics at Fisk University.
  • She is the fifth African-American woman to receive a Ph. D. in Mathematics (University of Texas-Austin). 
  • She was the first Black woman to serve on the executive committee of the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM).
  • She served on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Mathematicians (NAM).
  • In 1966, she became the first Black faculty member at Baylor University, the institution which had rejected her, with an explicit anti-black policy, as a student only five years previously. She spent her teaching career there until she retired in 1994 because of ill health.
  • She was heavily involved in anti-racist picketing; her articles situate her academic struggles within the broader anti-racist movement. 
  • She served on the Board of Directors for Goodwill Industries, the Board of Directors for Family Counseling and Children, the Texas State Advisory Council for Construction of Community Mental Health Centers, and the Board of Directors of Cerebral Palsy.
  • In 1971, the Baylor Student Congress elected Mayes Outstanding Faculty Memeber of the Year.
  • She was very successful, although she initially faced much opposition in studying mathematics; in her first undergraduate class she was the only Black person and the only woman and she was denied a teaching assistantship even though she was an experienced (13 years) and excellent teacher. 
  • Her Ph.D. thesis was entitled “A structure problem in asymptotic analysis.” Part of this work was published in the Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, v. 22 (1969) under a different title. (Later her research interests shifted to summability theory).
eshusplayground

Dear white feminists: Don’t forget to acknowledge the work of women of color.

eshusplayground:

I’ve been talking a lot about the intersection of race and gender recently, and I want to turn my attention to how we handle the physical, social, intellectual, artistic, and economic (and more!) contributions of women of color.

It’s bad enough in any context, especially when someone receives material or social gains from the women of color without giving them their due. But when it comes to any movement and any effort aimed at helping women, one must be extra vigilant.

Instead of a numbered list of tips and hints for you to follow to avoid being called out (an exercise in futility), I’m going to link to a few articles talking about this. I’ll try to limit the links to virtual spaces since that’s a different thing from “regular” publishing or academia.

And, as always, I urge you to approach the comments section with caution unless otherwise noted.

katchin05

em1ree:

juvjuvychan:

inbetweenthelineart:

amy-face:

trubr0wn:

rigbaby:

fuckyeahfeminists:

Scarlett Johansson responds to sexist questions!

“Is that inappropriate?”

You are a shining example of our culture’s sense of entitlement to women’s bodies.

props to scarlett for calling it out honestly

Remember the time she asked why the boys got all “the really cool thought-provoking questions’ and she got the ‘rabbit food question’

and i stood up and clapped for her for calling it out

Unless the interviewee initiates this topic…..don’t go there. It’s rude. :/

It’s not even that it’s rude, it’s just sexist plain and simple. This guy thought it was totally a-okay to ask about what Scarlett was wearing under her clothes. Why would he think that’s appropriate?  Because society conditions us to believe a woman’s body is not her own.  It can be ogled and twisted, and dissected all for the male gaze without any consent given by her. The guy even tries to defend himself by saying “hey it’s not like I asked if you wore lace panties or anything” like way to miss the entire fucking point dude. 

You just shouldn’t be asking what’s underneath her costume. Period. It’s none of your business.  And none of the guys get asked this question even though Chris and Jeremy also wore extremely tight costumes as well. It’s because Scar is a woman and therefore her body isn’t her own. Or at least that’s what this guy (and many others) seem to believe. 

Four for you, ScarJo.
You go, ScarJo.

deliciouskaek

So I know I’m a little late to this party…

shl333:

but I really, seriously need, to address the article ”In defence of Caitlin Moran and populist feminism” published on the NewStatesmen website by two women I can only find reference to as “Rhiannon and Holly” editors of a online feminist blog/zine called The Vagenda.

You can read the article in its entirety through the link above, and indeed it is one not to be missed. Because what this article represents is the serious lack of ability within the “populist” feminist movement- or the white feminist movement as I would call it- to address the issues in their own community and within their own conceptions of feminism itself. And although this kind of response to any critique launched at white feminist who claim to be doing a service for women through their actions, when in fact are only serving a small section of women and doing what could even be described as a complete disservice to other women is not SURPRISING in any respect, it deserves to be noted that while the excuses given as to why critiques of Caitlin Moran might be brushed off are not uncommon, they are in my opinion, particularly harmful. In fact, it is a method of derailing I have seen plenty of times in many “radical” or “progressive” circles to discredit valid critiques, especially when it comes to race, and write off those actually interested in constructive and healthy criticism of a movement as “divisive”. 

This method, widely used by white not-so-radical-radical apologists, is one that primarily articulates itself around the concept of “class” and “academia”. It is a method of discrediting those who are attempting to engage in progressive critique by aligning them with the “man” or the “system”, using elements of “class” such as education, as means for throwing out a valid critique by someone who happens to disagree with them. It is the method of argumentation that allows these two columnist to put someone heralding the concept of intersectionality somehow in the same category as being a classist, bougie, elitist. And frankly it’s digusting. Here’s why. 

First and foremost, intersectionality as a term was implemented to bridge the gap between white, upper class, western feminists/radicals/progressives and to offer them a way to understand how multiple oppressions- such as race, class, gender, and sexuality- could operate in one community, or even in one individuals, experience. Intersectionality is a term that has been used triumphantly by the groups LEFT OUT by elitist, classist, racist, and bourgeoise movements to fight for their inclusion within them. To turn that term on its head, to harken someone who uses the term in their fight for equality- here that being mostly women of color responding to Caitlin Moran’s dismissive and shitty comments about their exclusion from popular media, and in particular Lena Dunham’s Girls- as elitist, as exclusionary, is beyond reprehensible. It is a complete misappropriation of the term and what it means for so many women of color, for so many trans*, fat, poor, differently abled individuals, and others, who have found themselves unspoken for in the feminist movement. To take a term that has progressed a movement so far in terms of being more inclusive, more open to understanding the needs and struggles of marginalized groups, and turn into something the opposite of that for the sake of protecting the white privilege of white feminists is so disgusting and unimaginable, that I almost laughed upon reading it. But the fact is this type of argumentation is widely employed by white progressives who, in resisting to face their own privilege, will create one that they are being oppressed by.

That’s not to say that there is no privilege in the academic world of feminism. Absolutely and without question there is privilege in the ability to read, to access education materials freely, and in the United Sates at least with only about 25% of Americans pursuing higher education for whatever reason, the ability to sit in a classroom and learn about feminism. There is privilege in owning a computer or having access to one, privilege in being able to write or having the materials with which to do so, not to mention a host of other able-bodied and neurotypical privileges that otherwise allow for education, particularly higher education, to be accomplished for some people.

But the idea that a concept such as intersectionality is so theoretical, so completely incomprehensible to anyone without a college degree, that it is something that feminists shouldn’t be striving for is not only insulting to the concept but to the very feminists that these two columnist feel may be alienated by the term. For one, what is so remarkable about the idea that someone may be suffering multiple oppressions at the same time that interact and reinforce each other, that it couldn’t be easily explained? Do we forget that “feminism” in itself is a lot of theory, part conceptual in its underlying fight against male dominated structures such as “patriarchy” and “sexism”? Have we forgotten that “feminism” in itself is a term that needs explaining, yet many feminist have been happy to do it for decades, in a variety of formats and formulas in order to speak out to and work with those who may not immediately understand the complexities of the theory surrounding it? And have these women forgotton that one of the main battles feminism fights is in the area of education? Or teaching and learning? How many workshops have we seen “unlearning sexism” or “teaching female empowerment”, but somehow one about “unlearning racism in feminism” couldn’t be included on our lists?

And second, how insulting to what I assume to be the poor, lower class, uneducated, white women the columnists speak of, that they find them to be so unable to understand such a complex, really too confusing (trans* women of color exist?!) idea of intersectionality that they refuse to even engage with or educate about it! The whole idea that uneducated feminists could never come to understand what interctionality means without cracking a text book, not only ignores the fact that the vast majority of women lacking institutional education are the women of color to whom intersectionality applies, but also takes me back to a time when women, people of color, and a vast majority of other marginalized groups were thought to be “unable” of being educated and forced out of institutions of learning because they simply would “never be able to understand”. 

But thirdly, and most disheartening, is the fact that these what I presume to be white women, are so unwilling to address the struggles of women of color within the feminist movement, that they are so unwilling to pull their heads out of “populist” feminism’s ass, that they would encourage the idea that somehow by talking about the ways in which race, class, and gender intersect that women of color are being “divisive” or “exclusionary”. Again this is not a new concept, but the idea that these columnist would do so by comparing women of color fighting to have their stories heard to something “bourgeois” or “classist”, they VERY MODES by which they THEMSELVES have been excluded from the “populist” (white) feminist movement is something so despicable I almost have no words to describe it. It exists in the deepest, darkest pools of scummy rhetoric, finding itself a bedmate with “reverse racism”, “misandry”, and all the other role reversal, inverted oppression bullshit which other groups in power have used to make those that they are oppressing into the oppressor and themselves into victims. 

The ridiculous article wraps up with a well disguised sentence which proclaims that, “Moran at least speaks a language we all understand. And how many other feminists can you credit with that?” but reading between the lines I think it is clear what the authors truly mean. “Moran at least only addresses issues that are safe and comfortable to us, and race, among other things, is not one of them. So shut up.” Too bad these women, who seem to have no knowledge of the vast amount of feminist writers out there who have spoken for those marginalized within feminism, who HAVE given a voice to people who sure as hell don’t “understand” the ignorance perpetuated by “feminists” like Caitlin Moran. Because if they’d been paying attention they’d know. There ain’t no silencing us. 

leonineantiheroine-deactivated2

leonineantiheroine:

Black Feminists contesting that race and other oppressions interfere with the so-called core oppression of gender. There are feminists still making these arguments in writing without a smile on their face. Like obviously the marginalised feminists experience it but to still see those words being written…I don’t even know what they’re arguing. The rest of us have moved on. Anyway here is what Black Feminists UK said: 

Dear Vagenda Editors,

You might be surprised to know that a number of us here at Black Feminists were amazed to hear you declare in your latest New Statesman blog that “feminism is, and to an extent always has been, a white, middle class movement”.

We’re not sure the feminists of the Indian Chipko movement in the 1970s or the Southall Black Sisterswould agree either.

It seems that you’re most worried about the “issues of race, class, religion, sexuality, politics and privilege…fracturing feminist dialogue,” even if your fantasy universal feminism actively marginalises the experience of anyone who isn’t you.

You play into the damaging myth that feminism is for an elite and narrow group. In reality many people who don’t actively identify as or even distance themselves from the F-word still have feminist views. Similarly many people know how intersectionality affects them and others around them, even if they don’t consider themselves to be intersectional.

In recent weeks intersectionality – or whatever you want to call it – has been deemed irrelevant andliterally not worth giving a shit about. Now you’ve kindly told us it’s too academic. If we’re being honest, both come across as excuses to avoid talking about intersectionality itself and dealing with how it affects people. Given recent events, perhaps you can see why many black feminists and others are angry.

Intersectionality may be an academic term that has spilled into common usage among many feminists, but that doesn’t mean that the concept it refers to isn’t real and worthy of discussion. It’s merely shorthand for experiences that many people recognise and talk about – those points where race, gender, sexuality, ability, class and so on come together. And while language is important, most feminists only really use that kind terminology with others who know what it mean.

In obsessing over the use of one word, you not only miss the point (intersectionality could also refer to education), and imply that a vast swathe of people are stupid, but worse still you actively dismiss the views of people of colour and others.

In many respects, intersectionality actually tries to address accessibility, so it’s dishonest to impose a false hierarchy of accessible language first, then maybe followed by dealing with those minor fringe issues of racism, ableism and classism (you know, if we have the time after we’re done having a go at mythical “educated women [who] to want to keep feminism for themselves”).”

Just separately, I was fucking heartened by all the backlash against Caitlin Moran—from all groups of women and headed by feminists of colour. Our friend Lizzie C also sparked it off. So yeah it is shit that famous *F*eminists and *F*eminist orgs wanna pull shit like this, but even if we’re active or not (I’m not), feminism belongs to a whole group of people who have great intersectional analyses, can work with each other and are doing great shit! People who are discovering feminism will likely read *F*eminist stuff and then move on or like have strong critiques of the original *F*eminist stuff or just stick with it, lol. Anyway yeah. 

And frankly I am so sick of growing up working class and whiteness being used together to legitimise a feminist’s misogyny and racism against women of colour, especially when some of us did also (grew up working class that is), and when that person is upper-middle class and famous NOW.

Also those two Vagenda people should check out the poverty stats of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Afro-Carribean people in the UK (whom include WOMEN). And there are working class women who go to uni, so what the fuck are they blathering on about? Sure academic language can be really fucking alienating and people should tone it down but to act as if intersectionality is never explained, that women without degrees can never understand it, or that whiteness isn’t alienating to feminists of colour is BULLSHIT.

Just hush.

deliciouskaek

Thoughts forming

so-treu:

mmmightymightypeople:

note-a-bear:

I’m having some peculiar feels about this session of HuSchwy-criticisms.

Not that I disagree.

But I feel like I’m seeing more criticism and more support as of redlightpolitics’ post(s).

Which is cool.

I support that.

But, y’know, what about when the same happened to BA, or mmmightymightypeople?

Trying to be supportive while also not ignoring the feelings in my gut.

i had a post i was going to write exactly about this, but i’m busy, so it was taking me a minute to get to it. so instead of writing it, i’ll just use your post as lead in to what i was going to say!

which is that i am super SUPER glad that redlightpolitics is getting support. it is what *every single one* of us deserves.

but…that support didn’t come for YEARS. women of color were attacked by mr., blatantly and egregiously for years, and not only did nobody think much of it— MR WAS NOT KICKED OUT OF THE COMMUNITY—THE TROUBLE MAKING WOMEN OF COLOR WERE.

specifically—there may have been raised eyebrows. there may have even been harsh words for him. but he *continued* to get links, interviews, and support—he was even on feminist listserves and considered several feminists his *friends* (see his comments referring to sady doyle) and was getting “lovely letters of support” from those friends—even after the way he treated *other women*. if you all will recall, the “shit hit the fan” as it were, because of the interview a white feminist did got posted on a feminist blog.

but then it came out that he had some sneaky shenanigins going on with his students and then it became common knowledge that he did, indeed, try to kill a girlfriend—and suddenly there is outrage.

now—i’m in no way saying that him being a racist misogynistic dick face to me, ba, and countless other women of color was the same thing as him trying to kill his girlfriend.

i am saying tho—that what he was doing to women of color made what he did to his girlfriend *not the least bit surprising* to women of color. and yet in the end, the people who are least surprised by his actions are the people who have been subtly and blatantly kicked out of the community in the name of “sending lovely letters of support” to mr.

see here for a more detailed an more excellent analysis of what i am talking about.

the people who are currently struggling over whether the genre he writes in justifies the loss of privacy of a woman, or are “intrigued” by the idea of former abusers being advocates for feminism, etc etc etc—THOSE are the people mr is *in community* with. and far too many of them are now betrayed or upset by what has come out about him or his current actions—because *they see themselves* as his potential victims.

when he calls a 20 year old black girl *dangerous* because she writes about her machete or he calls her unintelligible because she speaks in her own tongue or when he comes after a chicana telling her to *PROVE IT* or when he “reports back” on how much his women of color students LURVED this white woman author that other women of color have made critiques of or when he does any of the other bullshit fucking fucked up shit his done to women of color—white women don’t see themselves in the position of a woman of color being mocked or threatened by a dick slinging white man in the name of feminism—they see a helpful white guy *standing up for* the wrongly accused white women that they feel very sorry for because those white women who were wrongly accused *could have been them*.

point blank: he is a part of the *F*eminist community. *We* are not. it’s easier and more interesting (i.e. more profitable) to be utterly curious about the enigma that is mr, than it is to even wonder where all the women of color have disappeared to.

that’s a problem to me. and i haven’t really seen many people willing to reflect on that.

i bolded parts but you need to read the whole thing.

thunderwishes

thunderwishes:

“Now it’s a war on women; tomorrow it’s going to be a war on left-handed Irishmen or something like that,” Ryan told the crowd of donors, according to Shushanna Walshe of ABC News.

Democrats began using the “war on women” rhetoric in late 2011 to describe an unprecedented legislative focus by Republican lawmakers during the last two years on limiting women’s access to abortion and contraception. Ryan has cast 60 votes on abortion and reproductive rights issues during his time in the House of Representatives, and all of them were deemed “anti-choice” by women’s health advocates.

Left handed Irishmen. Oh but this is not my favorite part! oh no! my favorite part is this.

Rich Beeson, political director for Mitt Romney’s campaign, echoed Ryan’s sentiment in an interview with ABC7 News on Thursday, calling women’s reproductive rights and equal pay “small things” that are not important to voters.

“Barack Obama four years ago said, ‘If you don’t have something to talk about on the issues you talk about the small things,’” Beeson said in response to a question about women’s issues. “And that’s what we’re seeing from the Obama campaign … They don’t have an issue to run on, they dont have an agenda for the next term, so they want to talk about the small things and distract America from the important things of restoring and strengthening the middle class and putting America back to work.”

Listen to me you fucking cretin, my reproductive rights, my autonomy, my freedom of choice my ability to decide things for MY BODY are not ‘small things’. And for you to even imply in any small fashion that they are makes you one of the most despicable and misogynistic fuckwads I have ever had the displeasure of becoming aware of.