Doing a “Consent is Sexy” campaign is sounds cool on the surface but it’s actually problematic in a lot of ways because consent should not treated as a “sexy” thing to do in the sense that it is made into something eroticized, it should be understood as a non-negotiable RIGHT. Enthusiastic consent must be an inherent tenant of sexual activity to ensure that people are not abused, and it trivializes its importance in establishing people’s boundaries if we just make it into something “sexy” and not INSURMOUNTABLY NECESSARY.
Post has 204700 notes.
Via: Save a Place for Me
Post has 101 notes.
Via: NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Post has 134085 notes.
Via: armpit toast.
Post has 60287 notes.
Via: I think I think too much.
the only reason y’all hate jennifer lawrence is because there’s a convenient little list of everything bad she’s said floating around the internet and you read it and decided yes she’s a horrible person. what if someone compiled a list of everything stupid and ignorant you’ve ever said and done and sent it to everyone they know. are you a bad person? probably not. are you gonna seem like one? probably
Ugh for real, I get that it’s bad for Lawrence to be be receiving positive “quirkiness” points for saying ignorant things but she’s not some kind of oppressive force in the world in need to be torn down.
Post has 5194 notes.
Via: new wave feminism
Post has 1 notes.
The rest of the message: “This is the closest version of the song Ugg A Wugg I could find like the one I saw last night. Except like I said earlier the outfits were different. You can look it up “Ugg A Wugg Elana Valastro as Tiger Lily during a rehearsal” and the person who uploaded it was James Valastro. I did really like the production but this has been on my mind lately.”
Well, the inherent problem with not only the “Ugg A Wugg” song but with the entire representation of the “Indians” in the play is that the very script calls them Indians and portrays them as stereotypes in the text. If a company wants to put on the show, they would have to not only go into the text and change it so that they are not called “Indians,” they ALSO have to avoid any kind of stereotypical visual and aural representation of American Indians. This could bring up conversations about the integrity of the original text and blah blah blah - and believe me, as a dramaturg, it is literally my job to keep the integrity of a theatre script in mind - but ultimately that’s the only way I think the show can be produced and not contribute to those racist representations.
So, based on the video, it still seems pretty stereotypical and of course, the fact that they are all white people yet clearly dressed as general plains-American Indians adds another element of colorface. Yeah, not good. Basically Peter Pan should just not be produced, or you completely remove the Indians and just make them another group without stereotypical American Indian dress and mannerisms.
Post has 21 notes.
So you’re saying that American cities that operate on racialized poverty in which one was a stronghold for the Klu Klux Klan that constantly harassed blacks for years while the city also profited from cheap black labor, and the other was a refuge for freed and runaway slaves that eventually had the largest population of blacks in the country and therefore the white population forced mass legislation to keep the blacks out of schools, jobs, and housing since the antebellum age, and a country in Africa that was colonized by the British in order to reap its natural resources and force the citizens to adhere to to European culture and religion that subsequently pushed Zimbabwe into a period of social and cultural darkness by which they are still trying to push themselves out of after only achieving liberation from the British thirty years ago……..will give me….negative feelings…..about…..black people???? Rather than…..demonstrating how white supremacy and subjugation……is widespread and awful????? Because black people have been oppressed…….that equals……White good???? Black bad????
Post has 6287 notes.
Via: new wave feminism
If I am ten minutes late to class with Starbucks it would be a funny but benignly sexist joke if I was a white girl, but because I’m a Black girl then it means that I don’t take my education seriously and maybe do not deserve my academic scholarship.
If my grammar in a paper is not impeccable then it’s because I can’t speak “proper” English and maybe I should be in a remedial class and not an English major. If I am struggling in a class then instead of being directed towards a tutor, I will be encouraged to drop the course.
If I do not have a flawless transcript and academic record then I am unlikely to be encouraged to apply for prestigious fellowships and scholarships, even while non-Black classmates who have the same transcript will be funneled into these programs.
To a non-Black person all of this might sound highly improbable or exaggerated. And yet, this is my life. And it’s the life of many other Black students at PWI’s.
And so it’s no wonder that many Black students at PWI’s learn to over-compensate by attempting to excel beyond their classmates. It is no coincidence that many Black students cannot relate to the hegemonic narrative of college in which students party and occasionally attend class all while largely being protected from the “real world.”
College is a microcosm of the real world for Black students who deal with the omnipresent threat of being viewed as not good enough. And even when we excel beyond our classmates, at the end of the day we will be followed by police and harassed and questioned about whether we’re even students.
The scrutiny encourages unhealthy coping mechanisms. Tokenism after all is cumulative of what occurs when white supremacy, perfectionism, and capitalist notions of individualism and the need to be productive all collide and pressure Black folks to forget they’re human like everybody else."
Post has 41217 notes.
Via: Save a Place for Me
When [an abusive man] tells me that he became abusive because he lost control of himself, I ask him why he didn’t do something even worse. For example, I might say, “You called her a fucking whore, you grabbed the phone out of her hand and whipped it across the room, and then you gave her a shove and she fell down. There she was at your feet where it would have been easy to kick her in the head. Now, you have just finished telling me that you were ‘totally out of control’ at that time, but you didn’t kick her. What stopped you?” And the client can always give me a reason. Here are some common explanations:
"I wouldn’t want to cause her a serious injury."
“I realized one of the children was watching.”
“I was afraid someone would call the police.”
“I could kill her if I did that.”
“The fight was getting loud, and I was afraid the neighbors would hear.”
And the most frequent response of all:
"Jesus, I wouldn’t do that. I would never do something like that to her.”
The response that I almost never heard — I remember hearing it twice in the fifteen years — was: “I don’t know.”
These ready answers strip the cover off of my clients’ loss of control excuse. While a man is on an abusive rampage, verbally or physically, his mind maintains awareness of a number of questions: “Am I doing something that other people could find out about, so it could make me look bad? Am I doing anything that could get me in legal trouble? Could I get hurt myself? Am I doing anything that I myself consider too cruel, gross, or violent?”
A critical insight seeped into me from working with my first few dozen clients: An abuser almost never does anything that he himself considers morally unacceptable. He may hide what he does because he thinks other people would disagree with it, but he feels justified inside. I can’t remember a client ever having said to me: “There’s no way I can defend what I did. It was just totally wrong.” He invariably has a reason that he considers good enough. In short, an abuser’s core problem is that he has a distorted sense of right and wrong.
I sometimes ask my clients the following question: “How many of you have ever felt angry enough at youer mother to get the urge to call her a bitch?” Typically half or more of the group members raise their hands. Then I ask, “How many of you have ever acted on that urge?” All the hands fly down, and the men cast appalled gazes on me, as if I had just asked whether they sell drugs outside elementary schools. So then I ask, “Well, why haven’t you?” The same answer shoots out from the men each time I do this exercise: “But you can’t treat your mother like that, no matter how angry you are! You just don’t do that!”
The unspoken remainder of this statement, which we can fill in for my clients, is: “But you can treat your wife or girlfriend like that, as long as you have a good enough reason. That’s different.” In other words, the abuser’s problem lies above all in his belief that controlling or abusing his female partner is justifiable…."
Post has 133233 notes.