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. 

deducecanoe

[Serious post! Ignore if you like!]

I hate poachers. Pure and simple.

The growing presence of these Olivia Munn types in the geek community is creating dialog that isn’t helping anyone. You’ve no doubt heard about a young journalist named Ryan Perez who did something stupid. Really, really stupid. He “called out” Felicia Day on Twitter, asking if she really contributes anything to geek culture other than being a celebrity.

I believe that Felicia’s main drive is probably writing and acting, and that geek culture is where she chooses to exercise her talents. She’s found a niche, and she works within that niche – but so have Nathan Fillion, George Takei, Wil Wheaton… All actor/writers who make the most of their geek celebrity. However, no one gets it in their blood to call these guys out. So why Felicia Day

It’s because she’s a girl, and some men are disgusting. Plain and simple.

Felicia Day is not a poacher. She’s a celebrity, sure. She’s a pretty girl, absolutely. The fact that she chooses geeky avenues to focus those interests? That makes her a geek. The fact that she spent her own money to make a successful independent video feature centered around World of Warcraft puts her into ubergeek territory. Not only does she put her money where her interests are, she creates things that further the community.

But then, you have these models-cum-geeks like Olivia Munn and practically every FragDoll. These chicks? Not geeks. I think that their rise is due to the fact that corporations are figuring out that geeks have money, and they want it. But they can’t abide putting a typically geeky face on camera, so they hire models to act quirky and sell this marketable geekdom. So, I can understand why someone completely ignorant could look at Felicia Day and see a pretty woman who is making one heck of a career starring in roles celebrating fandom, and mentally file them along with the fake geek G4 hostesses. Ryan Perez is a shoddy journalist and failed to do any research.

[http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/booth-babes-need-not-apply/]

So this happened a few days ago and the internet blew up, as it has a tendency to do. And though I’m just me, and though I don’t normally add anything to the tumblr-sphere but some rebloggings of fun/pretty/interesting-to-me gifs and facts, I keep thinking about this and need to get the thoughts out. Feel free to skip the serious!Anna-times and check back in when it’s reblogging!Anna-times again.

I have a problem with this blog entry by this dude whose name I don’t remember. I’m sure his heart is kind of in the right place, advocating for geeks with vaginas everywhere, but I feel he’s doing it wrong. I’m not even talking about the visceral hate for “booth babes” who, as a Con-goer myself, I don’t really even notice? But in the way that he uses Felicia Day as a “girl geek gone right” example. 

He explains that Felicia Day is, while a celebrity and a pretty girl, a real geek. She “chooses geeky avenues for…interests.” And I’m not arguing that at all. I love Felicia and wouldn’t think to question her geek cred, if you will. My beef mainly is why chicks have to validate their cred to begin with? Dudes never seem to have to do so. Chris Hardwick? Geekity geek geek. He also got a name for himself hosting a DATING SHOW on MTV. Why did no one question his geekiness? “Whoa whoa dude. You hosted a show where chicks and dudes met. It’s quirky yeah, but surely MTV put you up to it! You were MANUFACTURED. Maybe this is manufactured too! How do we know your love for Dr. Who is real?” Where are those kind of comments? Why do girls have to whip out their degrees in nerdery?

And who’s to say what those pretend degrees should say? The writer of the quoted blog states that Felicia Day contributes to the world of geekery monetarily and creatively, thus implying to me that all “real geek girls” should do the same. My money goes to geek shit for certain, but creatively? I can’t even create the neat gifs that I love so much. Does that make me less of a geek? Does this invalidate my love for nerdy things? On that note, does the fact that I can’t play a video game on XBox to save my god damn life negate the fact that I squeak happily upon seeing things Harry Potter related? Or Who related? Or whatever-thing-I’m-into related?

Am I a “poacher” because I fucking love the Hollywood panels at Comic-Con and have been kind of “meh” on comic books for a very very long time? Why do I have to question myself? Not that I genuinely doubt that I am geeky about the things I am geeky about, but I doubt that boys would even think about questioning themselves. If they identify as a geek, they identify as a geek and no one questions them. 

It’s just weird and frustrating that a woman’s interests will be put under a magnifying glass merely because she’s a woman. To quote Patton Oswalt, “I LOVE WHAT I LOVE.” 

Also, about booth babes…I genuinely don’t really notice them. Fox booth had them, but nobody is asking the fucking Fox booth about deep and serious stuff. I’m trying to think about all the booths I cruised by and stopped at. And they were all either the artists/creators or friends/family members of them. Maybe it’s the booths I stop at? I don’t stop at the video game ones. The toy places had dudes, or normal looking chicks. Mostly dudes though. The t-shirt towers had mostly dudes..

The books part! The book aisles had chicks! 

PS Again, not that Felicia Day isn’t amazingly awesome, but how come I didn’t hear this much escandalo when dudes were hating on Aisha Tyler? Maybe that’s because she replied and handed them their ass on a plate

Anyway. This concludes serious time. Back to your normally scheduled silly/funny stuff and pretty pictures.

(via wallflowersperk)

Great. Someone else setting up random criteria for who is and is not an actual geek-girl. We don’t put men under the same scrutiny. If they identify as a geek, we simply accept that. If a girl identifies as a geek, we judge her motivations and the purity of said motivations. We judge her as a person, we judge the intensity of her devotion to the things she loves. We’ll never accept that a chick, especially a pretty one, can just love Batman or CoD or BSG. There’s no wrong way to love nerdy things. And there are many types of geek-girls with varying interests. I really hate when we attempt to create a very narrow set of criteria for who gets to be a geek girl, then start excluding based on that. 

(via spastasmagoria)
notesonascandal

Mothers and Fathers of Daughters

imjustsarahcate:

I have a PSA for you.

-

    I am 30 years old.  I am a virgin (primarily by choice).  I have never had sex with anyone.  I have never been on birth control.

-

    I’ve never been on birth control because I was brought up to believe that birth control was for “slutty girls” who want to avoid getting pregnant.    Because I wasn’t having sex, and therefore didn’t need to worry about getting pregnant, I also never went to the gynecologist.  Ever.  Not until I was 29 years old and in so much physical pain that I literally could.not.function. 

-

1 year, 2 gynecologists, 1 D&C and many, many pain pills later, I was diagnosed last week with Endomterial Cancer, and am now facing a complete and total hysterectomy.  Not the kind where they leave some bits just in case, but the kind where they take a robot and completely and totally scrape out everything that was once intended to make babies.

-

And that is the best-case-scenario.  If it turns out the cancer has spread, then I’m in for the hysto, AND chemo/radiation/etc. 

-

If your daughter comes to you and wants birth control because she is having irregular periods, because she is having pain, because she is uncomfortable, or just because she FUCKING WANTS IT- it is your goddamn duty as a loving and nurturing parent— TO LISTEN AND RESPECT HER REQUEST.

-

Things you may do:

1. Open a dialogue with your daughter about WHY she wants B.C.

2. Educate yourself about the benefits of B.C.

3. Discuss your (and her) feelings about sex and sexuality as it relates to B.C. (if applicable)

4. Volunteer to take her to a gyno, offer to make an appointment for her, or accompany her to the appointment if she wants you too.  But respect her privacy if she doesn’t

5. Be open and understanding about the fact that she may tell you things you don’t want to hear or know.

6. Realize that her asking for B.C. does not automatically mean she plans to/is/wants to have sex.

7.  Be uncomfortable about it, and about your discussions.  It’s ok, she probably is too.

-

Things you MAY NOT DO:

1. Shut her down.

2. Condescend or pass judgement over her request

3. ASSUME she plans to open her legs to anyone that walks by.

4. Tell her she doesn’t need it.

5. Be verbally or emotionally abusive about her request.

6. Cast upon her your ignorance about what B.C can do.

7. Flip out without listening to what she has to say.

8. Refuse to take her to a gynecologist if she wants/needs to go

-

     Here’s the deal parents, whether you want to believe it or not, birth control and reproductive health are not SEXUAL issues, they are HEALTH issues.  And as someone who is 2 weeks away from the SOONEST oncology appointment to deal with a very terrifying issue- I will tell you that if you refuse to support your daughter dealing with her reproductive health- I consider you tantamount to a child abuser.  Because you are denying your child access to life-saving screenings and medications.

-

      No one ever took me.  I didn’t even think about it.  It was never an option.  I never had that kind of dialogue and now I have Cancer.  And maybe being on  birth control wouldn’t have changed that-  but considering I have never in my life had a normal period, I have to think it would. 

-

       If your daughter trusts you enough to tell you that she wants to look into birth control- that is a fucking GIFT and you should be grateful. 

      If your daughter trusts you enough to tell you she wants to look into birth control and your reaction is to respond with fear and judgement and cowardice, then I invite you to read my other blog.  The one where I talk about my pain and discomfort and regret.  The one where I talk about being 30 FUCKING YEARS OLD and having Cancer because nobody every bothered to take me to a gynecologist until it was too fucking late in the first place.  Feel free to check in daily, I have 2 weeks to my initial oncology consult and my physical condition isn’t improving in the  meantime.

-

      And I won’t apologize for my anger.  I won’t apologize for my language.  I won’t apologize for this lecture.  Because the person who should have taken me— is dead.  And I am having to indoctrinate myself into this, I am having to do this at least 15 years later than I should have.  Because she never bothered to tell me anything except that birth control was for “sluts.”

-

If you love your daughters, TALK TO THEM.  They need you. 

kyssthis16

Okay, Bitch. Now You Done Pissed Me Off!

kyssthis16:

So, that heffa Kelly McClure decided is a huge racist asshole, right? Yeah, so tell me why she decided to be the pettiest of bitches to my homegirl that commented on that stupid fuck-“article” on Vice? Is this bitch fa’real? Look, you go through somebody’s Facebook likes to counteract somebody’s point? Word? I’m pretty sure I still “like” Chris Brown on Facebook since I don’t feel like tryna figure out all the new shit and thus change my shit. This bitch is not only a racist asshole, but she’s fuckin’ immature. I hope Dodai mollywhops her in the face for implying that the lone Black writer at that fuck-website JezeFail doesn’t read. How fucking rude are you, bitch? See, this is why I’m so discerning with choosing my friends, ya dig. Also, why I don’t generally fux with white women. I can’t…………………………….

strugglingtobeheard

Ya know………..

kyssthis16:

I’m having a really hard time understanding how white women are rationalizing the whiteness of that fuck-show Girls and Lena Dunham’s casting choice. Maybe I live I’m naive, but I was under the impression that if you proclaim to be a decent ass writer, you can write a character without emphasizing race. I mean, POC come in all types of shapes and sizes with all types of personalities. Complexity is not a “white” thing. How is it so difficult to understand that? I mean, really. It’s not that difficult. But then I think about it………and it’s so somberly simple: POC, in the eyes of the white hegemony, lack a certain humanity that allows for complexity. We POC are monolithic. Duh, yo. 

dammitcaleb-deactivated20130328
velocicrafter:

jalwhite:

modernistwitchery:

redlightpolitics:

Lesley Arfin, one of the writers of HBO series Girls, on Twitter.
I suppose this is a joke? Is this how she deals with commentary about the lack of diversity in the show? I am baffled, someone through me a rope!

Well, this made me feel like barfing.

Disgusting.

white people: missing the point, making it about themselves, & showing their racist asses since forever.

Tell me again that the complete erasure of WOC from Girls was an accident? Go on, claim that bullshit again. Mind you, there are white people in Precious, but why let facts intrude on your racism?

velocicrafter:

jalwhite:

modernistwitchery:

redlightpolitics:

Lesley Arfin, one of the writers of HBO series Girls, on Twitter.

I suppose this is a joke? Is this how she deals with commentary about the lack of diversity in the show? I am baffled, someone through me a rope!

Well, this made me feel like barfing.

Disgusting.

white people: missing the point, making it about themselves, & showing their racist asses since forever.

Tell me again that the complete erasure of WOC from Girls was an accident? Go on, claim that bullshit again. Mind you, there are white people in Precious, but why let facts intrude on your racism?

ethiopienne

When do boys meet girls?

ethiopienne:

vagabondaesthetics:

I was talking to one my homies and she was talking about how she no longer finds Dave Chappelle funny because she believes misogyny permeates through far too many of the sketches that involve women. I can’t really offer any sort of rebuttal to that because I haven’t watched the series in years and the only ones that come to mind pretty much exclude women except for the one when he is in the car dancing to some music and the woman with him titty pops out.

Then she started listening the stereotypes women get like they’re difficult, angry, nuts, and so on and so forth. Essentially, men don’t understand women as people. So, I sat on that for a couple a seconds. What I came up with is that it is to be expected. Men’s lives don’t intersect with women until a nigga wants to fuck. And I say nigga because and not because I’m black or to be crass, but put out the crassness of the conversation and the desired relationship with women. As young boys we are never encouraged, and often shunned if we do, to delve into the world that has been constructed as girl/women. You are not supposed to watch shows for girls, listen to music for girls, play with girls’ toys, read books for girls and pretty much anything that is marketed/divisible into boy and girl. None of the material we’re given as boys really even includes girls except in the tomboy role.

And the tomboy role is an interesting function. That is when girls are allowed, there are still hurdles and restricts considering she is still a girl, to interact with boys among boy society. There is always some pushback among the boy fraternity, but she will have interaction with boys on boy level. Far more than the inverse at least. While there are mountains of positive things to be said about girls being tomboys, from a male perspective this is problematic to me on some level because the interaction is only taking place in his territory (for the majority of the time at least).

Now for girls it is interesting to me because straight (OUT OF THE DUNGEONS OF RAP) of the womb they are pretty much forced to interact with the boy world in every facet of their life. Firstly, all things that they consume will pretty much be in lesser quantity than the boys. And even within the little that they get exclusively targeted to them there will pretty much always be substantial male influence/characters permeating throughout the entirety to it. Shit, there are times with stories that take place in an entire female border school/university and with just a single male character he dominates the narrative. So, with parse amount they do receive they still get healthy (err…) doses of boyhood. In addition to that they’re encouraged to play with boys and consume our media alongside us. Women’s lives are intertwined with both masculinity and femininity since they are toddlers. It would seem contradictory to say that men’s lives aren’t, but we have to keep in mind that men only meet women in childhood and adolescence on their ground. No budges.

Now we get to a nigga wants to fuck stage. Fucking clueless as all hell. This may feel like a tangent, but I believe it bares mentioning. Lets sit back and think how many men actually know what a period is. Right? Right? This is one of the most basic things that can happen to women, but it is not understand by men beyond bad stand-up, terrible stereotypes on TV, and signifying that now that particular woman is able to get pregnant. I think that is one of our greatest examples of our profound ignorance of women. A simple biological necessity in order to make sure that the planet continues to have your species is barely understood beyond the most tenuous grasps of the basics. Where was I again? Okay yes, a nigga wants to fuck and we’re clueless. We’ve had zero training or preparation for this. Shit we haven’t even learned that you’re fellow fucking human beings yet! Jesus, we’re fucked. Sort of. Well not sort of, it’s a no. Women kind of just accept our ignorance because of one of our favorite phrases “boys will be boys.”

I know a positive example of a woman that are usually in boys lives in the mother. I would say it’s a good point. I would, but I won’t. Why? Well because mothers are not women to their sons. Mothers to sons barely exist on the same plain as human beings. They are God damn heavenly perfect figures. Which is why men who love their mothers (live, breathe, and die for them) can still give zero fucks about the treatment of other women in the world including how he treats women. I believe that regardless of how much a girl may love her daddy, there will almost certainly be a certain point and time in relationship when she starts seeing his as both a man and father (or even just a men who happens to be her father).

I feel like now I should answer my question prompted in the title. I honestly can’t say when because I think a significant percentage (I am neither optimistic or pessimistic right now so I would say majority or major minority) simply do not. That’s not to say these men secretly hate the women they are married to, have kids with, and stay married with their entire lives. Nope. Still love. That’s all possible. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he recognizes their humanity. It doesn’t mean he has any grasp on the totality of women as people. It’s just, I don’t know. Feels like an extremely basic thing you know?

Then again I’m still working on myself with deconstruction within my mind and my views on women aren’t always awash in completely picture perfect views of women as people. Doesn’t matter whether I fucking loved the Powerpuff Girls growing up or that I had more female friends than male friends in schooling or that most of the characters I emphasize with in film are women or that I love or 15 million other things, they are still there regardless. It’s a long process that shouldn’t be a long process. I’m still ashamed of myself for it.

Bolded for emphasis.

bad-dominicana

Does this feminist diatribe make me unfuckable?

soydulcedeleche:

dionthesocialist:

artfaccia:

A Craigslist Missed Connection Jaunt

LOL

but yeah most men dont want anyone who can match them in any way. their whole sense of self depends on being superior. anything that threatens that…is often met w great defense, offense and general scaredycatness.

*sharpens claws*