bethamphetamine

setfabulazerstomaximumcaptain:

sonic-hip-attack:

Imagine a wall full of circular holes, that circles can keep walking in and out of with no difficulty.

Now imagine that the triangles manage to get the resources together, after years of not being able to fit through the circle’s holes, to drill a single triangle space into the wall.

Now imagine that the circle — who previously supported the triangle’s efforts because they are well-rounded (har) and value equality — comes along and sees the construction project. But instead of being happy, they get angry.

“Well, I won’t be able to fit through your hole!!!!” the circle cries.

“I helped you get the drill!!!!” the circle shrieks.

“Make it fit me too!!!!” the circle demands.

The triangles, barely holding it together enough to get a triangle hole together, stare at the circle in confusion.

“You have all the holes you need,” the triangles explain. “This is for us. You don’t need to fit through our hole, too.”

“YOU’RE BEING UNEQUAL AND HURTING MY FEELINGS!” the circle wails. “I DON’T SUPPORT YOUR HOLE IF IT DOESN’T FIT ME TOO. GIVE ME MY DRILL BACK.”

“It’s not your drill, it’s our drill. You helped us get it, because you said you cared.”

“I ONLY CARED WHEN I THOUGHT YOU’D MAKE A HOLE EVERYONE COULD FIT THROUGH. YOU’RE PERPETUATING INEQUALITY!!!”

“Why is it up to us, the small group that has never been able to fit through the wall at all, to make a hole everyone can use? Why isn’t it up to you, the people who have been able to cross back and forth at will for years? We just want to see the other side; why are you yelling at us?”

“I DIDN’T ASK TO BE BORN A CIRCLE, OMG. I’VE HAD TO WORK HARD ALL MY LIFE TOO. YOU’RE JUST BEING BIGOTED AGAINST ME BECAUSE OF SOMETHING I CAN’T CONTROL, JUST LIKE EVERYONE IS AGAINST YOU.”

“You are interfering with our project and asking us to comfort you while we’re trying to make progress. Please leave.”

“I’m going to tell everyone about this,” the circle warns. “Nobody will support you now.”

“Apparently nobody ever did,” the triangles sigh, getting back to work.

It’s kind of sad

That we have to draw comics using colorful shapes

To explain systematic inequality to people

(Source: charliebink)

see also: feminism • truth bomb •

2 weeks ago ▫ 106,218 notes ▫ (selflubricatinganus ▫ charliebink)

How The Mainstream Media Exploits ‘Science’ To Reinforce Gender Stereotypes →

On Tuesday, mainstream news outlets covered the results from a small survey in Australia that polled just over 100 women about their sexual preferences. One headline atop an NBC story proclaimed, “Science proves women like men with bigger penises.” The reporter includes a few other examples of studies that have reached the same conclusions about women’s predisposition to larger male genitalia, but only after acknowledging that the results from past research on the topic “have been disputed as sexist, or scientifically flawed, or both.”

Sex and science often become entangled in the news, perhaps because the topic makes for eye-catching headlines. This is hardly the first time that the media has latched onto a small study in an attempt to make a larger statement about gender roles, regardless of the potentially shaky scientific relevance of this type of evolutionary psychology. Under the guise of being backed by scientific authority, news outlets will often tout studies’ results — or sometimes, selectively highlight certain results — to reinforce gender-based stereotypes. Of course, citing research also sets up a situation where it’s more difficult for opponents to take issue with the those studies, since it may appear as if they’re objecting to scientific fact simply because they don’t want to believe the truth.

Here are five other examples of this dynamic at play in mainstream media outlets:

1. Women’s hormones affect their voting choices. CNN incited significant backlash right before the 2012 election when the outlet published an article entitled, “Do hormones drive women’s votes?” The study, which consisted of unpublished data from researchers at the University of Texas, San Antonio, intended to investigate whether a woman’s hormone levels or relationship status contributes to her decision about how to cast her ballot. The study found, among other things, that women who are ovulating tend to favor more liberal political candidates because they “feel sexier.” After a massive outcry, CNN removed the article, explaining, “After further review, it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.”

2. Husbands who do housework have less sex. A USA Today article published at the end of January suggested that “traditional chores are linked with more sex for married couples,” citing a study that relied on data collected two decades ago. The researchers believed that their findings — which found that couples in which women did more of the traditionally “female” chores had sex 1.6 times more each month than the couples in which men did all of those jobs — were still relevant despite the passage of time, because “the relationship between sex and housework has changed little since then.” But much of the coverage of the study drew a simplistic connection between chores and sexual activity without giving much consideration to the myriad of other factors that can contribute to a couple’s gender balance, sex life, and household chore break-down — particularly the fact that women and men have been socialized to consider many household tasks to be “women’s work.”

3. Women are gaining weight because they are doing less housework. In February, a team of researchers sought to investigate the ways that “socio-environmental” factors can impact obesity. They concluded that, since many American women have entered the workforce and are now spending the majority of their days at sedentary office jobs, they’re spending less time doing more active tasks that could help them maintain a healthy weight. The New York Times chose to package its coverage of this story with a picture of a woman vacuuming and a headline promising to explain “What Housework Has to Do With Waistlines.” The article sparked controversy on Twitter — not because critics necessarily doubted the study’s methods, but rather because it appeared the media neglected to consider the implications of its framing. The Times’ headline and picture relied on the deep-seated stereotypes that women have “responsibilities” to stay thin and do more of the housework.

4. Deep voices attract women. Similarly to the media’s assertion that the Australian study “proves” that women prefer larger penis sizes, the New York Times declared the results from a 2011 study made it “official” that women are attracted to deep voices. Researchers in Scotland found that the female subjects in their study preferred lower-pitched male voices, and speculated that women are biologically programmed to select a mate who appears to be more traditionally masculine. Of course, women may simply be more likely to favor qualities that Western society has already determined to be masculine and attractive. The New York Times noted that the researchers also planned “to study how a women’s preference is affected by her menstrual cycle and by the geographic location of where she meets a man.”

5. “Cougars” are more sexually active because older women sense their fertility is declining. A 2010 TIME Magazine article proclaimed “the science of cougar sex” stems from “evolutionary forces” that push older women to become more sexual in their later years. The article spends about 10 paragraphs detailing a University of Texas’ psychologist’s theory that women in the 30s and early 40s are more sexually active — as opposed to men, whose sexual activity supposedly remains constant — because their fertility is declining as they approach menopause, and women are driven to seek out sex before they become infertile. In the second the last paragraph, the author eventually includes the important caveat that the study’s methodology is disputed because the psychologist recruited three-quarters of the participants from Craigslist and the remainder from the University of Texas in Austin — but only after the headline, the photo depicting a naked couple, and the bulk of the article already solidified the framing.

(Source: invisiblelad)

see also: truth bomb • feminism • PSA •

3 weeks ago ▫ 422 notes ▫ (fupa-dupa ▫ invisiblelad)

why “love is all you need?” spits in the face of queer experience

timseriladashmimeni:

content warning for bullying, self-harm, suicide, and violence at link.

this video was recently brought to my attention. titled “love is all you need?,” the point of the short film is to bring awareness to the harmful effects of homophobia via the route of reversing homophobia—and the end result is heterophobia, the hatred of straight people. it showcases a young girl’s struggles of being heterosexual in a homosexual world. in the short film, ashley fights to overcome the effects of bullying, rejection born of fear, parental pressure, inability to come out…you know, all the things typically associated with being a marginalized white, cishet, middle class girl in america.

it’s been hailed as an eye-opener for people across america. it’s been praised as heartbreaking, touching, and universally powerful. it’s groundbreaking! it gives exposure to stories of bullying and hatred in our society! but do you know what it actually doesn’t do?

broadcast the voices of queer people.

when we make a short film about reverse oppression, we aren’t actually opening anybody’s eyes to anything (or, rather, we shouldn’t be). it’s not revolutionary or even particularly interesting. showcasing a young straight girl’s romance, regardless of the subsequent failure of said romance, is simply giving representation to more straight people. it makes it appear as though the problems of gay people could be the problems of straight people; however, in the process, it fails to recognize the very diverse voices of queer people all across the world.

not only is the film still focusing on straight people (because heaven forbid we portray queer people in a positive light!), it’s also appropriating the stories of queer people by directly lifting elements from their story and imposing them onto a straight character. and why? because we want this medicine to go down easy, don’t we? what this film basically does is take away the endlessly valuable queer voices that we need in the media, assigning their stories to a more acceptable vehicle in the form of a straight girl.

think about this for a second. there have been countless films about the horrors of homophobia and the harmful effects of heteronormativity—yet what’s the only one that gets any coverage? that’s right: one that paints straight people as the real victims. we are supposed to not only empathize but also sympathize with the main character. we are still supposed to view gay people as the ‘other,’ the anonymous entity that is opposing everything we hold dear to our hearts as a nation.

do you know where my representation in this short film is? it’s in the bullies. it’s in the cruel taunts, the teasing, and the violent hands. my representation is being painted as the bane of society—a view that is already pervasive enough in the media. we were assigned the role of school bully; we were assigned the role of stereotypical gay kid; we were assigned the role of the ones that drive others to suicide.

that isn’t the only thing i found wrong with this video, though. in fact, there’s so much wrong with it that i might not be able to fit it all in one post. but something that was constantly bugging me throughout the film was how the film dealt with gender roles.

we already know that the film worked pretty hard to reverse ‘gay’ and ‘straight,’ something they were pretty upfront about. but if you watch it, you can see that they did some bizarre clusterfuck of gender roles too—and by reversal, i mean they clearly had zero concept of gender roles. when ashley was talking to her mothers, one of them mentions the football team; when ashley admits she didn’t make the football team, she’s ashamed, but does say that she’s going to be in the school play.

now back up for just a second here. her lesbian parents want her to try out for the football team; instead, she tries out for the school play, which is shown to be almost exclusive to gay guys (romeo and julio; she has a minor part, etc.). if you think that doesn’t sound like stereotyping in itself, then you need to reevaluate whether you’re stereotyping or not. lesbians are all tough and manly and play football! gay guys are all girly and effeminate and like drama!

believe it or not, this is NOT turning anything on its head. this is so rooted in society that it’s tired to even see it being used in a short film about bullying LGBTQ+ youth. this just cements and one hundred percent reinforces the idea that liking girls is a masculine trait while liking boys is a feminine trait. now, where could that idea possibly come from? (hint: it’s homophobia!)

however, every lesbian couple you see is still beautiful and feminine, even though they did throw in a shitty bit about the football-drama dichotomy. both of ashley’s mothers wear traditionally feminine clothing, have long hair, etc., while any boy you see is still traditionally masculine. no exploration of how gender expression could potentially be more free in a homonormative world has been done at all. butch & femme have been erased ENTIRELY—and this is some very serious erasure to be done in a film that claims to turn inequality on its head.

it still has the very stereotypical mother-father dynamics firmly set in place. one of ashley’s mother acts more ‘motherly’ toward her, while the other has more of a ‘tough love’ act about her and is clearly supposed to represent the father. we’ve seen the tired cliche ‘gay son coming out to parents, father is disappointed’ scene over and over, and this echoes it. the implications of having a father-mother dynamic instead of a mother-mother (or father-father) include giving a pretty clear statement that same-sex marriages are STILL dependent on heterosexual roles.

it doesn’t help that homophobia is grossly simplified in the short film. all the adults are seen as rather clueless; they just ‘grew up that way.’ they’re either concerned for ashley and sometimes a bit abrasive, or they’re crazy religious zealots! all the bullies are just evil nameless homos, because there is no possible way that anybody could engage in homophobia in ways other than taunting or violence. it ignores how pervasive homophobia truly is by assigning it to arbitrary figures. now straight allies get to pat themselves on the back. “i’ve never beaten up a queer person before! i must not be homophobic!”

this film doesn’t even begin to encompass, however, the huge reality of what LGBTQ+ actually means. it’s supposed to be a film to showcase bullying and how wrong it is; however, the only thing that’s truly changed is that it’s a homonormative world rather than a heteronormative one. it is still clearly cisnormative, mononormative (i.e., pansexuality/omnisexuality, trisexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, etc. don’t exist) world. there are no trans* people to speak of, nor are there any people with anything but a monosexuality. cis gay, cis lesbian, cis straight. those are the three things you can be. is this starting to sound like some seriously shitty representation or what? (there are also no polygamous relationships, but come on—media should have at least caught up enough to showcase a slightly more complex relationship between TWO people.)

there’s some serious racial stuff going on as well. the main character, along with her family, are undeniably white. however, several of the girls who bully ashley at least appear asian, and one of the boys who plays ‘smear the queer’ with her is an older black male. your only characters of color are portrayed as Evil Gay Bullies. that is problematic whether you like it or not.

moreover: straight people are not ignorant. this film assumes that every homophobe, every straight person, must be ignorant in order to bully. this is a ridiculous point of view. straight people actively ignore queer struggles; straight people actively fight against them every fucking step of the way. this is not ignorance, this is privilege and hatred. stop treating them like babies who need to be coddled. they need to get a fucking education, stop being so hateful, and get a clue about what queer struggle really is—and not in the terms of ‘oh look at the poor straight girl.’

the final point i’d like to make, at least for this post, is to address the slurs. several slurs are used for straight people in the film. the main one appears to be ‘breeder,’ a derogatory word for men who sleep with women or vice versa. (a ridiculously cisnormative definition, but what can you expect?) however, d*ke and f*ggot are also used repeatedly—as is queer. that word, for any of you who don’t know, should be reserved for somebody who does not conform to the gender binary or is not heterosexual. a gay male can call himself queer. a trisexual person can call themselves queer. a trans* lesbian can call herself queer. somebody who identifies with no gender can call themselves queer. a cis lesbian can call herself queer. somebody with a non-european idea of gender can call themselves queer. but a straight cis woman has done no work to reclaim the term. the term never referred to straight cis women in the first place. why in the world is it acceptable for them to appropriate the term from us? it’s absolutely fucking ridiculous. same with d*ke—that is a word for lesbians to reclaim. and same for f*ggot—that is a word for gay men to reclaim.

what we NEED to do is give more queer people voices. we need to let them talk about their experiences. we need to be intersectional; we need to acknowledge the huge span of LGBTQ+ issues and not simplify them to a ‘powerful’ or ‘moving’ feature that does little but make people feel good about themselves while simultaneously setting harmful gender roles in stone.

see also: seriously • feminism • good read • long post • tw: abuse •

3 weeks ago ▫ 441 notes ▫ (timseriladashmimeni ▫ timseriladashmimeni)

Have you ever tried going without food for 24 hours? Today, I am on my 68th day. But a man in my block has been on strike since 2005. Can you imagine it? He’s only alive today because the Americans force-feed him, preventing him from making that ultimate statement of principle, the same one they have on their New Hampshire licence plates: “Give me freedom, or give me death.”

In truth, while I am horrified by the suffering around me, I am also encouraged. There is more solidarity among the prisoners than ever before. The military is not being honest about the number of men on strike: most of us are refusing to eat. The military responds with violence, as if that will break us; it draws us all together.

Shaker Aamer (via thepeacefulterrorist)

His ending words:

I hope I do not die in this awful place. I want to hug my children and watch them as they grow. But if it is God’s will that I should die here, I want to die with dignity. I hope, if the worst comes to the worst, that my children will understand that I cared for the rights of those suffering around me almost as much as I care for them.

(via mehreenkasana)

see also: tw: abuse • guantanamo bay • feminism •

4 weeks ago ▫ 1,141 notes ▫ (dropkicks ▫ thepeacefulterrorist)

theperksofshippinglarry:

kehlso:

Viewer calls TV anchor fat.

TV anchor responds.

(Source: washingtonpoststyle)

see also: oh fuck yes • feminism • PSA •

1 month ago ▫ 248,255 notes ▫ (mistressadamantium ▫ washingtonpoststyle)

(Source: feministmegaphone)

see also: truth bomb • feminism •

2 months ago ▫ 1,216 notes ▫ (coketalk ▫ coketalk)

unapologeticexistence:

Where Were White Feminists Speaking Out For Quvenzhané Wallis?

If there were ever any doubts that white feminists are disengaged from and apathetic to the concurrent racism that Black feminists must navigate in an increasingly hipster and kyriarchal society, look no further than their deafening silence when satirical website, The Onion, called 9-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis a “cunt” on Twitter.

The arc of white feminist dialogue on social media in the wake of the barbaric, misogynistic tweet emerged as tepid awareness – maybe, possibly, there’s racism – before curving towards the indefensible position of their white, male counterparts – it’s just brilliant satire – before ultimately coming to rest at dismissal. The lack of concern that white feminists displayed for this little, brown girl could not have been more obvious even if they donned a head scarf and said a raspy, “Ain’t nobody got time for that!” before scurrying off to chide Oscar host Seth MacFarlane for his song about boobs or the Academy for only awarding 9 out of 30 awards to women.

Because that’s all that’s important, right?

We’re in post-racial America, so we shouldn’t be so touchy about MacFarlane and Lincoln star Daniel Day-Lewis sharing a guffaw about Don Cheadle being mistaken for a slave while he’s in character. We shouldn’t care about Iron Man star Robert Downey, Jr. defiantly clapping as MacFarlane joked about the brutalization of a then 21-year-old Rihanna, because she went back to her abuser, so to hell with objectifying her for shits and giggles.

And we most certainly shouldn’t care about a 9-year-old Black girl-child being called a “cunt” on the biggest night of her life because there are more important white feminist things to be concerned about.

The silence — or in the case of XO Jane writer, Mandy Stadtmiller, the defense — in the face of The Onion hiding behind a foggy, humor lens to perpetuate misogyny and racism has been disappointing, but, unfortunately not surprising.

Why?

Because for many white feminists — not all — the realization that they do not stand to benefit from acknowledging the intersection of race and feminism renders them mute. The conversation surrounding the lack of inclusiveness and diversity within the feminist movement is one that never progresses because many white feminists feign ignorance of their privilege. They are comfortable allowing their Black counterparts to march in their Slutwalks while protesters carry “Woman Is The Nigger Of The World’ posters because racism is not their battle. It’s ours.

They encourage us to shrug off our Blackness for the greater feminist good; the end result being a contemporary plantation tableau defined by Ole Miss and Mammie slaying the patriarchal dragon while the issues of racism and classism are hidden behind the veil of “progress.” And while this scenario is about as feel-good as The Help, expanding white privilege — feminist or otherwise — is not equality.

When Quvenzhané Wallis was called that horrible word and Black feminists rushed to fill the vast social media space with righteous indignation and even a love letter letting her know that she is cherished, valued, and worthy of protection, we fought that battle alone. Even Baratunde R. Thurston, comedian and author of How To Be Black, defended his former employers. While he made it clear that he would stay out of the fray, he peeped his head in juuuuuust long enough to let us know that though he felt bad for Quvenzhané and her family, The Onion deleting the tweet was kind of a huge deal.

Oh, well, that’s just swell! We’ll just grab our tampons, Afro picks and anger, and be on our way.

^See what I did there? That’s satire.

As the layers of this incident continue to unfold, Black feminists have been accused by misogynists of irrationalism in the face of microaggression and ignorance in the face of satire apparently so sophisticated that it floats just beyond our comprehension. And during this condescending exercise in privilege, white feminists have largely remained silent. That is the travesty here. We can all take the outcry over Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” all the way to the White House, but a 9-year-old Black girl can’t even get the support of white feminists in 140 characters or less.

Though I’m sure I will be called divisive for examining the very large cat that has apparently grabbed the tongues of self-proclaimed feminist organizations and torch-bearers who would have essentially stormed the Bastille if any young, white girl had “playfully” been called a “cunt” in front of millions of people, I’m perfectly fine with that. In fact, I embrace it. Feminism is the flawed solution to a very complex equation, and to get to the root of any complex equation, one must divide. Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly evident that some people don’t want us to divide because then we’ll realize something isn’t quite adding up.

Shirley Chisholm once said that ”the emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, “It’s a girl.”

For Black women, go ahead and add racial objectification to the list. And if the case of a 9-year-old Black girl has taught us anything, it’s that when it comes to combating intersecting cases of racism and sexism, don’t be surprised if we’re all we got.

(From Clutch)

see also: feminism • intersectionality of GTFO •

2 months ago ▫ 3,153 notes ▫ (thinkspeakstress ▫ unapologeticexistence)