the thing is though i dont think i’ve ever met a single dude who genuinely made an effort not to be misogynistic but still actually takes offense when a woman says “urg, men”
and pretty much every white person who is able to recognise and unpack their privilege gets what i mean when i say “urg, white people”
and straight people who are legit supporters do not get huffy when i say “urg, straight people”
and like im cis, but when trans people say “urg, cis people” im not horribly wounded
because when you’re aware of the system you also understand that it’s not about you
and i understand that nobody hates me for being cis, they hate the power that i have over them because im cis (or light-skinned, or able-bodied, etc)
like remember that quote that was like “no, i didn’t say all white people, but since that’s what you took away from it, yes, all white people”? pretty much, the more angry and confrontational you are about blanket comments, the more those comments are directed at you
which makes them a really convenient and effective thing
Quoted from Sarah Kendzior’s “Surviving the Post-Employment Economy"
“In the United States, nine percent of computer science majors are unemployed, and 14.7 percent of those who hold degrees in information systems have no job. Graduates with degrees in STEM - science, technology, engineering and medicine - are facing record joblessness, with unemployment at more than twice pre-recession levels. The job market for law degree holders continues to erode, with only 55 percent of 2011 law graduates in full-time jobs. Even in the military, that behemoth of the national budget, positions are being eliminated or becoming contingent due to the sequester.
It is not skills or majors that are being devalued. It is people.”
Her work is frank, speaking of a reality I hope that will never be mine. At the same time, it gives me a strange comfort to know that I am not alone.
I will always reblog this quote. Hits way too close to home for me.
The most salient part of this, to me, is the underscoring of the fact that there is no “right” college major where you’re guaranteed a job forever. Conservatives love to pretend college graduates working minimum-wage or freelance jobs just didn’t “pick the right major” - those foolish fools studied the arts or literature or something else frivolous, so they deserve crushing debt and no job security! No. There is no magical college major that will let you sidestep the jobless recovery.
only if you help me defeat candy crush level 70okay fine
text posts function as social currency in a way; like creating a lot of popular text posts gives you a certain prestige as a blogger, because notes themselves function as social currency. people who get a lot of notes are popular. people are popular because they get a lot of notes. a self-perpetuating cycle of continually accumulating prestige.
For example, I have a text post with over 500,000 notes, but it did nothing for my social prestige on tumblr because this is the ONE text post I’ve made that really took off (that and the hermione text post). Bloggers like officialunitedstates or the-vashta-nerada who continually make popular posts, and have dozens of posts with extremely high note counts, probs have way more social prestige on tumblr than I do, measured in note count, follower count, and impact factor
But it’s a dual-edged sword because you can create a text post that gets positive attention (most text posts) or you can create a text post that gets a lot of negative attention (see that one about “female privilege is saying no to sex when you have a headache”). Having a lot of high note count posts doesn’t always mean you’re popular in a positive way. Of course some posts become popular because someone dismantled the OP’s post in a particularly spectacular, noteworthy lol way - so who earns that social currency? the person who made the post or the person who made the post famous?
and what kind of social currency are they earning?? people have gotten bad attention for text posts (the person who made that regional sports manager post got worried about the effect that post might have on her professional life, and asked people to stop reblogging it; and ofc some people have deleted their blogs over poorly-received or offensive posts)
text posts also sort of create a sense of community, because the funny ones at least generally follow a very tumblr-specific grammatical style and have a very specific kind of dry humor; there’s a lot of ironic wordplay going on and whatnot
there u go. now lend me your power and help me beat candy crush
Inclusive children go far.
Kids are too smart for this school crap.
This would make my day as a teacher.
man you can think someone is childish for liking stuffed animals and dressing up to go trick-or-treating and watching animated movies and anything else all you want but you want to know what is actually childish??? being rude because you think someone is childish for having fun and enjoying things when there are no age requirements to what can bring a person joy
someone’s not going to be invited into the blanket fort of happiness
and it’s you, my friend
Well, white dude with I’m guessing considerable stock in Google, is the library just there for your needs or purposes?
Maybe you enjoyed your exercise in wordplay and making points already made. But what was your point again? Books make libraries so without books libraries aren’t libraries? Books look different so libraries can’t be libraries? Libraries look different so libraries can’t be libraries? You don’t need libraries for books so we don’t need libraries? I’m sorry, what?
Oh but wait, we’re pretending? Pretending what? Pretending there’s an access divide? Pretending there’s a digital divide? Pretending information illiteracy? Pretending folks lack job skills? Pretending college students need help with citation (BAHA HAHAHAHAHHA)? Did I get a Masters in Pretending? I MEAN I DO HAVE A GREAT IMAGINATION SO I PROBS GOT STRAIGHT A’S. OR P’S FOR PRETENDING. I’m sorry, what?
Also read this from BeerBrarian - The End of “The End of Libraries”
On Sunday, October 14th, yet another “End of Libraries” piece appeared. Per usual, it was written by a white male with no use for libraries, because every single time this trope appears, that’s part of the author’s demographic background. Beyond that, it’s a crucial part of the author’s background. It is overwhelmingly affluent white men who argue that because they do not use something, it has no value for anyone. Libraries. The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Affordable health care. It’s the same argument.
"The internet has replaced the importance of libraries as a repository for knowledge." Ah, yes, because you can trust everything you read on the internet.
Republicans play this game all the time. “I don’t need it, therefore it’s not important and we should get rid of it.” I can vividly remember the last time I was in a library. It was three weeks ago. I needed to do research and the material I needed was not online. Not every book is completely indexed in Google Books. And yes, an ebook is cheaper and faster than buying a physical copy of a book - but it’s harder to skim through an ebook quickly, and the physical copy at the library costs you nothing (up front; tax dollars etc etc).
Like I said, I was at the library three weeks ago. It was around 4 pm on a Tuesday. And you know what? It was CROWDED. There was a packed sign-up sheet for the computers. Kids and parents abounded in the children’s section. Older people and teenagers read at the tables in the main area. I had to wait in line to check out my book.
Before that, I had spent a lot of quality time on my library’s website. I like to read both physical books and ebooks. My library does Kindle loans. OK, their website is a crappy government website, and it can be a little difficult to navigate, but it’s doable. I read books I probably couldn’t or wouldn’t pay full price for, AKA a big part of the purpose of a library.
Libraries are not useless in the digital age, and even more importantly, they aren’t all empty. Just because YOU, PERSONALLY do not need or use something doesn’t make it a charming but impractical relic of a long-forgotten age.
My kid and I go to the library often enough that most of the librarians recognize her. And it’s wonderful because she now reads so much and so fast that we wouldn’t be able to afford all the books she consumes otherwise.
This guy is a tool.
i never understood the whole reaction towards mental illness where someone says “it’s all in your head” i feel like that statement is just as redundant as telling someone with pulmonary edema that “the fluid is all in your lungs” like yes. yeah thats exactly where it is get it out of there???
After the 2012 Grace Hopper conference I wrote a post in which I raged against the company that had the audacity to put branded fingernail polish in the swag bag. My exact quote:
“Nail polish? For attendees of a technical conference? Just… Fuck you. This is so very, very inappropriate The thought that someone out there assumed that I, as an attendee of the Grace Hopper conference, would appreciate nail polish as a free gift, is incredibly insulting. It completely ignores the intellectual, technical side of me, and reduces me to someone who cares primarily about upkeeping my physical appearance.”
I had a brave friend who talked with me about this afterwards, saying she felt a bit hurt and alienated because she routinely paints her nails. The fact that she would have appreciated getting free nail polish made her feel that I was reducing her to someone who cares primarily about upkeeping her physical appearance.
Men aren’t the only ones to buy into the myth that feminine presentation is inferior to masculine traits. Women also receive these messages, and reinforce them.
"In short, it’s bad to assume that just because someone’s a woman that she wants nail polish. It’s just as bad to assume that just because someone’s a smart, technical women, that she doesn’t want nail polish.
You can’t fight stereotypes by declaring everyone has to do the exact opposite of what’s stereotypical – that’s just creating a new enforced stereotype. To truly fight stereotypes we must detach the ideas entirely, not replace them with something else.
Nail polish has nothing to do with technical intelligence. (It has nothing to do with gender either, but that’s a bigger battle.) It’s just a colorful paint that you can put on your nails. Some people like to use it. Some people don’t. That’s all, everyone go home now, we’re done.”
i’m not sure where the idea came from that liam is just a bumbling baby idiot and that we shouldn’t blame him for his actions because of this, but it’s really rubbing me the wrong way. “he isn’t smart, he can’t word things correctly, he doesn’t mean any harm!” he’s 20 years old, not an infant, and sometimes that is just the way shit happens when you’re an ADULT - you fuck up and you have to deal with that. he knows how to form sentences, he knows his fanbase, he knows how to read when people react. stop trying to bypass his actions by calling him unintelligent, which, by the way, is also offensive, is it not? feel how you want to feel about someone/a situation, but don’t try to shove it under the rug because ‘no harm was meant’. the point is, you’re missing the point.
Before John Green, his general category of realistic (non-fantasy) YA was rife with teen angst and “issues” fiction that you might have associated with the legendary Judy Blume, or with newer writers like Sarah Dessen or Laurie Halse Anderson. Anderson’s classic 1999 novel Speak, about a high schooler struggling to deal with the aftermath of sexual assault, was so influential that three years later Penguin launched an entire imprint named after it. One of the books launched under the behest of Speak was Green’s Looking for Alaska. But it’s Green whose name you’re more likely to know today, not Anderson’s, although Anderson has won more awards and written more books.
On Twitter, Green has 2 million followers. Compared to the rest of the leaders in Young Adult fiction, that number is staggering. To approach even half the Twitter influence of John Green all by himself, you need an entire army of YA women. Anderson, Blume, Dessen, Veronica Roth, Cassandra Clare, Richelle Mead, Margaret Stohl, Kami Garcia, Rainbow Rowell, Maureen Johnson, Malinda Lo, Holly Black, LJ Smith, Ellen Hopkins, Shannon Hale, Lauren Myracle, Libba Bray, Melissa Marr, and Leigh Bardugo: As a group these women only have about 1.2 million followers on Twitter.
That’s the voice of one man outweighing several decades of women who have had major successes, critical acclaim, and cultural influence.
So there’s this thing that I’ve always known about, that @Karynthia, @Blackamazon, @so_treu @weseerace and @bad_dominicana discuss often, about how terms, ideas and scholarship that Black women create are not associated with their originators or even with any Black women at all (and not even speaking of just plagiarism; I mean erasure). Or worse, they’re used against Black women. Or even worse, people actively fight the terms’ existences especially within mainstream feminism.
Womanism. Intersectionality. Matrix of domination. Misogynoir. Four of the many concepts that are fought tooth and nail to not exist (especially the latter since it’s newest). Subject to the scrutiny of imperialist White supremacist capitalist patriarchy (this is bell hooks’ combined term) and how it shapes epistemology. Eventually once accepted, then they are disconnected from its originators often for the purpose of silencing other Black women. There’s people who use the terms and ideas to push their agenda (agendas that usually exclude Black women) yet none of the originators are anywhere on their sites. No tags. Not mentioned in conversation or teaching. Nowhere. And even when they discuss modern issues in feminism, they refuse to name Black women currently doing the work. They gladly name any White woman they’re referring to.
This is not about Black women wanting “White approval” as utterly boring and predictable Whites and some Black men (who also try to silence Black women with other Black women’s words) will suggest, a notion I already deconstructed in the past. It’s about a long history of taking and erasure. Taking. Erasure. This has a history as certain aspects of Black progressive politics are regularly appropriated and then used by Whites to shame or exclude Black people.
Anytime I mention Black women’s work, all of a sudden it becomes “unethical” or “greedy” to credit our work or idea spreading and education is deemed “impossible” if our names, contributions, ideas and praxis are mentioned. I am fascinated by multi-degreed, multiple column-writing White feminists who can’t figure out who coined “intersectionality” or what it actually means. This is willful ignorance shaped by a need to erase Black women’s work/relevance in feminism on the surface and marginalizes Black women, in general.
today i got to sit in a circle slumber-party style with my group of ninth graders and listen to what they like best about themselves and even though some of it was thoughtless, some of it was also really sincere and sweet. it felt so good to be able to tell them that yeah dude, being able to draw a mushroom is cool as heck and so are you.
Mark Carrigan, Asexuality: The ‘X’ In A Sexual World
I love this quote so much because I’ve said the SAME thing to my friends when talking about asexuality. So many times in our culture we couple romance and sex and they just AREN’T the same thing. They aren’t the same feeling. And, I’ll use TV as an example, too many times in our media shows will write in “romantic” plots and most of it is about sex and we are expected to enjoy this—expected to support this. But it feels so unreal and contrived because this kind of portrayal weighs heavily on the sexual aspect of a relationship, and we as the audience on some level understand that this isn’t right. That a truly romantic relationship/connection isn’t necessarily about sex or sexual desire.
The reality is that romance and sex are different. They may support each other, but they are fundamentally different. Having a distinction, thanks to the asexual community, i think allows us to speak to a new language of interpersonal connection. One that is richer and more definitive than the distinctively sexualized one we’ve been speaking.