#intersectionality is definitely important here too

[biggestthighestgeminiest]

Here are my combined thoughts about Barbie (2023) as I saw it on the 18th and have had more time to think abt it.

Some good, some bad - overall I very much enjoyed it, laughed my ass off, cried quite a bit, was enthralled by the set and costume design, but left feeling like some things were off and perhaps not accomplished in the best way. This will all be delivered in bullet points in a very chaotic and random way and is NOT ordered in importance omg. Anyways i love media analysis and I will probably not explain this in the best way but HERE WE GO

the casting was fantastic, everyone read the assignment and lived their campiest life, margot robbie was phenomenal and ryan gosling absolutely killed me with laughter, glorious glorious

set design, costume, props,, perfection when it comes to bringing the mattel products to life. bangin'

i had that stupid fucking dog that eats and shits. i lost my mind when he came on hsdgkhakh

the message of barbie being representative of all little girls is still very lost on me. the idea brought up when barbie speaks to the teens, where they tell her that she gave them unrealistic body standards- well this never really gets resolved at all. Yes there was a diverse range of Barbies but they were all still beautiful in a conventional way that adheres to western beauty ideals. every barbie has perfect hair and skin and clothes even by the end of the movie. and yes i guess barbie is supposed to be this "above everything else" sort of divine feminine beauty but is still not representative of most young girls. as hilarious as the line narrator's line about margot robbie is, it sort of knows itself, that it is showing us the most perfect looking women, but doesn't address it at all beyond a simple joke. honestly what will mattel do beyond this? i imagine people will be more than happy with this movie so they won't have to make any big changes. i mean their "curvy" fashionista isn't close to being fat, and i don't believe they will ever make a barbie that isn't conventionally beautiful... so this movie just sort of gets to say it's about accepting yourself without actual real-life substance if that makes sense? it reminds me of that cartoon of all those diverse yet conventionally attractive models, with diverse people who don't fit those standards standing outside that box looking angrily. what's the point of the film at the end of the day when not addressing all those people left out of the conversation? also made me annoyed that cellulite was still the big thing that barbie was concerned about, like really?? it's a bad example as people are coming to embrace cellulite and it's also relatively easy to hide, i don't think they would have margot robbie have like, idk, dark under eye circles or a double chin,, idk someone say this better than me but the cellulite thing annoyed me (as someone who has loads of it!!)

the plot was BONKERS and i for one don't really care about plot holes or cartoon logic. there were some things that made me overthink about barbie lore and then i thought to myself that it doesn't really matter. the campiness of it is more important. im sure it will deter some people but again i dont mind it being silly in that way as long as it delivers on its messages and themes, which it does to a certain extent

absolutely lost it at the you are kenough shirt, ljadhkglkhd

as i said in a previous post i predicted that it was going to be the mom who was paired with barbie. i loved the idea sm and it was very heartwarming

i CRIED when barbie first sat down and watched the humans around her living their life, she was so overwhelmed by so many emotions and it was such a simple moment of show-dont-tell and man did i weep :))

i LOVED the ken bits and i did feel as though there was a bit too much ken. especially at the end. but at the same time i loved the dance sequence. its hard loving it so much yet wanting it not to have been to prevalent. i felt like it took away from the barbies a bit which goes against the whole point of the movie????

um the barbie's plans of distracting the kens was... i guess reminiscent of all these spy or superhero movies where women use their beguiling nature against men to get the upper hand? like i am woman so i will flirt with man to distract while my team escapes and hooho it works :)) it was slightly different and not overly sexy or about flirting but it still had the same undertone. like really? the best way to get the other barbies out was to continue to conform to patriarchal standards and pump the ken's egos? surely there's a better way? yes the kens are idiots and turning them against each other works but it still felt a bit icky. i guess i just find this trope annoying being like... ok i am being taken advantage of men so i will USE the thing they oppress me for against them,, idk surely surely there's another way.

also America's character's plan of kidnapping the barbies and ... using very true and very valuable feminist lines to snap them out of it felt... weird? like what she was saying was 100% true but taking them out of context and almost using them as one liners made them feel less serious???? like making women "wake up" by just telling them about how the patriarchy takes advantage of them is just... idk. like in real life women who are indoctrinated and truly believe misogynistic things won't just wake up by being told such a line. and i know the barbies are brainwashed to forget their powerful feminist backgrounds so it's not entirely comparable to the women i just mentioned but... idk it felt disingenuous. i did laugh my ass off at the guitar scene but it still had that ickiness attached like..

i would watch this movie again, no doubt about it and i will definitely pick up on new things and easter eggs etc

mattel's board did make me laugh, perfectly casted and performed but again- mattel has its name on this. they know what they are doing. they know we will love this movie and not demand any change. it will still be full of men controlling the output of production. it will still put out products that don't reflect all young people's desires. it will still make products that uphold current societal norms. so having these buffoons in the board meeting just gets soured a bit when knowing these people will still be in power in real life....

the ruth bit made me cry and no i do not care that her ghost is just around. i loved it

the marketing team knows exactly what they are doing. the huge push of promotion made me gobble up all their interviews and im sure people will be buying all the barbie products. i am yet another victim of capitalism and i will thank them for it when i inevitably buy their you are kenough sweater

again i loved this movie despite all the bad things abt it. i love being critical of the wider impact of this movie while still enoying it as a piece of media and entertainment. i needed this movie and fuck it i want to go to barbieland so bad. i know i shouldnt. i love ken and think about ken more than i do barbie which is fucked up but the movie also played into it in a way,, as described before. i mean even ryan gosling being so iconic in all the interviews is adding into this lol. how many people are posting videos of him vs videos of the actresses i wonder.

also cockring ken. BUT HE WASNT WEARING THE COCKRING SO WHATS THE POINT EVEN???

the narrator was an interesting choice, personally wasn't a huge fan of it but it did somewhat fit with the rest of the cinematic language of the story so i can't say much about it

mattel knows exactly what its doing with putting its name on this movie. i think greta did a great job despite the constraints that mattel probably put on her,, it's hard to tell if the flaws of the movie come from the corporation's infuence or from the writer and director's creative decisions, most likely it's a combo of both. again i believe that the actors and designers and production team did a fantastic job with what they had, they committed to the bit. i would have loved for the movie to have been better, but it is still a great film in my book. as said before i would watch it again and would still enjoy it despite the flaws. the himbo part of my brain can shake hands with the media literacy one and emerge with an overall positive experience, yet PLEASE do not think this is the ultimate feminist movie, it is a step in the right direction, it could have been better, and i understand if you don't like it at all. but also i dont think it would be right to blindingly love it and call it perfect bc it's not.

[caintooth]

From a transmasc who loves transfems more than I hate transmisogyny: If you are AFAB you should not be calling yourself transfem, a transwoman, or a transgirl.

Let me start this by saying that I agree, obviously, that our society needs to stop caring about AGAB. Ideally, we should not be assigned AFAB or AMAB to begin with, and we should all be able to use the language we feel suits us best. If you are both trans and a woman, it does seem like it makes sense to call yourself a transwoman, doesn’t it? Even if you were AFAB?

But let’s have nuance, please. Let’s start by acknowledging this: a world in which our AGABs have no impact on our social roles / perceptions / interactions is NOT a world we live in yet. No matter how badly we may want to simply be feminine and masculine and androgynous and outside of connection to a binary system and AGABs entirely, we have NOT achieved that sort of liberation. To pretend we have- to act as if your AGAB has no impact on the way you are perceived and treated- is an extremely privileged game of imagination.

The most common argument I have seen from AFABs using transfem / transwoman language for themselves is that they are someone who is both, by all definitions, transgender and a woman. This may be because they previously transitioned into manhood or transmasculinity, and did not identify as a woman or as feminine at all during that time, but now, for whatever reason, have started identifying as a woman / feminine again. Or they may be a person who identifies with any variation of non-binary woman, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, demigirl, etc. Any identity which is either “I used to not be a woman, but am a woman now,” or “I am a woman, and another gender or lack thereof, too.”

I understand. In whatever version of this scenario, they are both transgender or have transitioned at some point, and are currently feminine or a woman. It does really sound like transfem or transwoman should be the correct language to use in this scenario!

I am non-binary, transmasc, and was indeed AFAB. I get it. I am transgender. I am not a woman, but I am also, sometimes, a woman. I am transgender and I am a woman. And I spent years of my life fighting against femininity, only to find that finally being allowed to be openly masculine has helped me embrace femininity again. It seems this is not an uncommon experience. But I am not now, and never will be, a transwoman.

Because the word transwoman has very, very specific meaning. “Meanings can change,” and “words have more than one meaning,” you say? Yes, that is true! And it should be! Change and embracing of nuance is so important to our community. And nobody should be policing the language anybody else uses.

But that being said, please. Embrace this nuance, if you are so passionate about words having it. People who were AMAB and are women have extremely different experiences than people who were AFAB and are still / are again, in whatever form for whatever reason, women or feminine.

Being a woman who was AMAB has unique culture, intersectionality, and vulnerability. Countless transwomen have asked people who were AFAB not to use the language of actual transfemininity, because it is such a different experience than being trans and feminine separately. Let me make this clear.

People who were AFAB are expected to be and rewarded for being women. If we perform womanhood in an unpalatable way, yes, we do experience misogyny. If we are also transgender, yes, we do experience transphobia. But neither of these things, even when experienced at the same time, are the same as transmisogyny, which can only be experienced by people who were AMAB.

This is because of the patriarchy. Gender Issues 101. Manhood and masculinity are seen as the ultimate power. Womanhood and femininity, as less. So, yeah, I get your confusion here. People who were AFAB, especially if they are also trans or are women or feminine in the “wrong” way, will indeed always be seen as lesser than men, for the fact of being AFAB alone! Absolutely nobody is saying that misogyny and transphobia against AFAB people are not massively violent forces in this world. Nobody is saying people who were AFAB have it “easy!”

But again, again again- people who were AMAB and are women experience a form of violence and hate very different from the kind we as AFAB people do. You know as well as I do that the patriarchy does not view women who were AMAB as actual women. It instead views them as failed men. And to those indoctrinated, that is a crime worse than womanhood. It is the ultimate insult: “They are not women. They are clearly not men, either. They are third. Other.”

AFAB people who are trans or perceived as “failed women,” no matter our actual or internal connection with femininity or womanhood, are viewed by society negatively, yes, but not as third or Other. Because, despite the wording, “failed women” are still actually viewed as women. This is because the patriarchy views people who were AFAB as inherently flawed by mere circumstance of birth. We are inherently capable of failure, because we have already failed by not being born cis men… And cis men, on the other hand, are viewed as ideal, perfect, god-like, and thus not capable of failure at all.

Let me reiterate. Due to transphobia and the rigid structure of gender within the patriarchy, when people who were AMAB declare “I am a not a man,” they are denied the status of woman. But, due to misogyny and the position of men as supreme, flawless beings within the patriarchy, when people who were AMAB respond by saying “I am a woman,” they are also denied the status of man. It is this also which is so significant. They are viewed by the patriarchy as Other in a way that people who were AFAB never will be, because we will always just be viewed as women, which is at least human.

The fact that people who are AFAB will only ever be viewed as woman is a separate issue, with separate conversation around it. Because I understand, as one of them, that we may identify with a concept of thirdness and of Otherness. We, like women who were AMAB, are not men! We feel a kinship there!

But I think I have explained well why our experience of Otherness is not the same as Otherness experienced by transwomen who were AMAB. No matter how deeply we feel third, Other, different, strange, weird? Even if this is, from the depth our soul and core of our being, not how we want to be treated? Society is still willing to view us, at the very least, no matter how much we hate it, as women. Which, like I said, is at least one way to be seen as human.

Women who were AMAB, however, are only ever treated as Other. Not even as human beings. Do you see how this is different? Do you see how this is worse?

The two questions we are trying to answer in this post are, first, why is it wrong that some people who were AFAB want to call themselves trans women or trans feminine? Which leads us to, second, why would they want to in the first place?

Transwomen who were coercively assigned male at birth are, in fact, women. They are not Other. They are not third. They are human beings and the patriarchy is wrong. I know this. The wider queer community claims to know this, too.

But we must not let our desire to affirm transwomen in their womanhood cloud our eyes to the fact that the vast majority of the world still holds extremely violent and dangerous mentality towards them.

When people who were AFAB use the language of transwoman, transfem, and transgirl for themselves, they are equating their experiences to that of AMAB people. They are, in a way, fetishizing transwomanhood. They are saying, “I have seen those called transwomen also called weird, and strange, and third, and Other. I feel that way myself, sometimes. Words like ‘genderqueer’ and ‘genderfluid’ and ‘bigender’ and ‘demigirl’ and etc., though perfectly established and expressive of my gender, do not express to others the quality of inhumanity which I feel I am a victim of. They do not express my uniqueness. But transwomen are seen as inhuman, and unique in their suffering. I am going to associate my feeling of inhumanity with their word, too. I am going to make sure this association continues, so that my pain is acknowledged, too.”

It is a violent co-opting of language. It is self-victimization. It is denial of differing axises of oppression. You are allowed to hurt, to feel Other, and denied of your humanity. But what reason do you have to equate your experience of hurt with a more marginalized group’s oppression, besides selfishness? Especially when you have been asked, repeatedly, to stop.

This behavior creates an unsafe environment for actual transwomen, who deserve community with people who acknowledge the unique experience of transfemininity! Who should be able to comfortably find other actually transfeminine people to make friends with and confide in! Who should be allowed to have their own spaces, communities, and safety nets!

Transfeminine people deserve security. Sorry for the word play, but I literally cannot imagine anything more insecure than stealing language from transwomen.

[rei-ismyname]

Uncanny X-Men #15 review

I can't believe it took me 15 issues to realise that this book isn't getting better and that I should direct my energy to interesting releases and my weekly roundup. Actually, I can believe it and I regret nothing. It's been a learning experience and an inspiration to do better, for me and for readers. I definitely did earnest analysis of this issue but you can tell that I'm realising this in real time as I do. It's a good thing, a positive thing, and I think we'll all be much happier. Gail Simone, your book sucks is aggressively mid. Spoilers below the cut

I do enjoy the Four Gun Kid and friends

There's an awful lot of proper nouns this issue, as Simone jams as much exposition as possible into 20 pages. Marquez's heroic designs and pencils do a lot of heavy lifting in part 3 of 4 of Dark Artery, but I still don't know what the hell is going on. The Outliers are trapped in a repetitive state, seemingly repeating the same beats each issue. They're scared and then they're not, except Calico actually is until someone talks to her. They're friends but one of them has doubts until they're reassured. They're down here because it 'called to them' and nobody stopped them. Marcus and Chelsea run Haven and they insist the kids deserve to know, whatever that means. The Outliers knowingly walked into danger alone, except this time they could leave whenever they want. Being called somewhere by voices in the middle of the night is .... Just wait until morning, you know? Even for Uncanny X-Men this is dumb.

She's guarding ironic hell?

What I'm getting at is that this book would be better decompressed. Every so often there's an element that is decompressed - like the Xavier/Sarah through line in the first arc, but that literally went nowhere and got in the way of main character development. Now we're in an awkward spot where the beats don't feel earned, because I'm reading along expecting to learn more about the main characters and getting John Hughes air punch payoffs instead. I keep saying similar things and it's getting tiresome. It's not me, Uncanny X-Men, it's you.

Who TF is Shuvahrak and why do black mutants have to perform labour for them even after death? They're fucking dead. I love the new outfits and the bizarre notion that they're MANDATORY down here. Goths only, death for non-compliance. I hope they keep these uniforms after whoever it is gets punched.

Behold! Proper nouns!

The four arm kid looks awesome, and his friends do too. They have a huge proto X-Men vibe that cuts a few ways. They're clearly connected to Haven/Dark Artery, meaning this institution is not just built on black history or mutant history but black mutant history. I feel like we're grasping at intersectionality here but not delivering any kind of statement. Why are these government Klansmen hunting black mutants specifically and what does that say? Why on earth is Henrietta letting this dude go? He literally just threatened to bring down two dozen agents on them, and the historical context makes it even more suicidal. That's the kind of thing Xavier does that highlights his naive X-Liberalism and privilege. There's value in compassion and mercy but Henry has been living in a swamp until the villain-coded present presumably as a result of these choices. I AM BAFFLED.

Cool, creating a hell for your shitty abusive husband. I dig it. I wonder if Calico's mother is down there with the snitches in unending torment. IDK why we don't just fold that into regular hell, which looks pretty awful and doesn't require multiple guardians or villages. History is important but there's got to be an easier way.

Let's check in on the older X-idiots. Rogue is embarrassed! You love to see it, though of course it's not a mistake with social consequences. There's no time to learn from the dragon punching either, as the adult X-Men have to visit Hot Topic then rush into action again. Not only did the St Juniors know about the extra dimensional graveyard underneath the swamp but Gambit did too. Why did nobody say anything? No time for that nonsense, don't worry about it. It's just a 200 year old matryushka doll of doors and guardians for mutants. I think? As usual, the characters are winking at us saying 'don't think too hard about this, just enjoy the moments.' The only 'new' information is that Gambit knows about the Dark Artery but the implications of that are not explored. Rogue the leader never asked about this place and the 8 people who knew about it never told her. That we check in with the adults at all just feels unnecessary, like Simone is treading water. The next issue is the climax of this little arc and there's simply too much resolution for 20 pages. I've been here before too, but I'm not falling for it this time.

'BEE TEE DUBS, Haven is built on a custom ironic hell for snitches and mutant haters. Also a mutant graveyard. It's dangerous but it should be fine.' Not that hard, Remy. Why didn't you hurl that alligator idiot down here?

Why are they the line? Can't they just leave?

Calico loves Jitter, huh? That's nice, I guess. She's a very bombastic character with big emotions and incredibly uncomfortable at expressing them - this came out of nowhere, but it did not surprise me. Moving past that, I don't actually believe this is going to be pursued in any significant way so it's hard to get excited for a whiff of queerness. I'm not expecting NSFW scissoring but even the most committed WLW Marvel depictions are stunningly chaste. Logan and Ororo fucked in Storm and that was at least earnest and sincere. I wouldn't go as far as to say I'll eat my hat, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was straight up queer baiting. You know, like all the other times.

Racist zombies beware, goth X-Men are here.

One positive is that, despite being part 3 of 4 it's as friendly to new readers as any other issue. Woof, that's really not very positive, is it? I'm starting to question why I'm reviewing books that are consistently baffling and average at best. After all, I have very finite energy and there's decades of actually fun and interesting X-Men comics to talk about - and occasionally some new ones. Me being sick didn't help but I really had to force myself to do this and that's not healthy. There's only so many ways to express the failings of this approach and I'm not sure that anyone else is enjoying it either. Offering optimistic speculation about the likelihood of payoff and development is a fool's game, so I'm not going to play it. The Endling mystery is being revealed next issue and I can't say I'm invested in that, but I did give it a chance.

Here's what I'm going to do - I'll focus on the weekly roundup as a more substantial project where I can just skip stuff that sucks. I'll do full reviews for Exceptional and probably adjectiveless as well as anything excellent. I wish I reviewed Magik #5, for instance. Even Giant-Size Nostalgia would give me different stuff to be baffled and hornswoggled about. So yeah, I'm learning from this, it's a good thing. I'll take notes on the books that excite me, the parts of books worth discussing, and the occasional dunk. Fun and positive, instead of walking into the same wall each week and expressing puzzlement that it hurts.

Much love Ground Bears and Moonbeams.💜❤️🤎

[leucoma]

here's my (very long) rant about "girl's girls" and the importance of intersectional feminism

i will be blocking anyone who’s unnecessarily rude on this post. i may turn reblogs off if necessary but they’re tentatively on for now

so, i saw this post:

some of y'all really aren't a "girls girls" like you claim. your definition of "girlhood" is pink bows and sharing lipgloss. you repost "female rage" compilations with just conventionally attractive white women. you say "i'm just a girl" after doing something unintelligent. this is just repackaged woman hatred. it's not intersectional. it's shallow and lame.

i don’t necessarily disagree with anything said here, but it was posted by a radfem. and, as a disclaimer, i do identify as transgender (specifically androgyne), but i’m AFAB, i’m typically interpreted as a woman, and intersectional feminism is an essential part of my core beliefs. i have never and will never detach myself from my experiences as someone who grew up experiencing misogyny, but i simultaneously do not see myself as a woman, because that’s simply not my identity at this point in my life.

i think boiling feminism down to an aesthetic and an excuse for “unintelligent” behavior is extremely harmful, and that’s exactly what’s been happening lately. i know the “demure” trend started as a joke, but women who take it too seriously are genuinely causing harm to themselves and others. modesty is all fine and good, but faux modesty in the form of bragging (sometimes to shame others for being unideal in some way) is downright cruel to women in general, and demeaning to the self in the sense that if you label your personality, presentation of self, interests, and behaviors as uniquely feminine traits, you’re putting yourself in a box and saying “look at me, i’m ideal! i’m feminine! that’s how all women should be!” … not to mention all the “girl math” and “i’m just a girl” sorts of phrases that have been repeated endlessly, as referenced in the post i saw.

on the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with expressing femininity. but you must be careful not to gatekeep it. femininity is not just for white women, not just for cisgender women, not just for young women! besides, any gender can express femininity to whatever degree they want. it’s not hurting anyone. (and also, no woman owes society any sort of stereotypical femininity in the first place! someone’s presentation should always be a personal choice!) and i want to emphasize that yes, if you are an adult who identifies as a woman, you can absolutely call yourself a “girl,” but don’t forget that you, too, have responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is to not downplay your own autonomy in life… consider why you want to be seen as “just a girl.” is it to deflect accusations of wrongdoing? you’re your own person. you control you. claiming otherwise to be cutesy is very, very dangerous to yourself and other women.

i also strongly believe that if you're going to call yourself a girl's girl, you should at least actually work to be a feminist, and incorporate intersectionality into your values, and include trans women in your conversations about gender, whether you "agree” with transgender identities or not (because, let's face it, a stranger's identity and decisions about presentation are not yours to judge if they don't actually affect you, and transgender individuals face a lot of dangers and hardships whether you want to victim blame them for it or not)

tl;dr please stop gatekeeping femininity, and stop playing dumb and ditzy (a crude caricature of femininity) just to feel accepted by society. why should your presentation be the thing that defines you? and if you unironically say you’re “just a girl” as an excuse for harmful actions or as a refusal to learn from life, why are you so opposed to personal growth? focus on your actions as a person instead and let others live!

[anonymoushotsexyperson]

INTRODUCING MY BLOG!

INTRODUCING ME:

My name is Anon I am 22 years old and I really enjoy philosophy, psychology, art, spirituality, science, and, politics. Not in the mainstream sense of the word like I don’t see myself covering the election or congressional hearings super heavily, I’m into political sociology and just sociology in general which for those who aren’t familiar with what that is I basically really enjoy learning and understanding and studying the development of the human being as it interacts with the socioeconomic and political systems in place. If you’re someone who believes in the importance of intersectionality when giving voice to the oppressed you will enjoy sociology. I am currently indulging myself in a lot of leftist/marxist literature and a psych major in college, I have always heavily aligned with socialist and communist beliefs but haven’t really found my place just yet as I am still studying and learning the economic philosophies.

WHAT TO EXPECT HERE:

Politically charged posts about the issues I have with the puritanical online left as well as the edge lord nihilist centrist/right I will definitely talk shit about the right wing too but I don’t see a lot of growth out of critiquing them cause its already being done a million times over by my comrades, I aim to collect an audience of leftist and left leaning a political folk and help them integrate into humanities long fought war against fascism. I want this blog to be a place of growth so ill probably focus on people and topics (when I am posting about politics) that could aid in growth against antifascism so I will be focusing a lot on being a voice for, educating people on, and constructively critiquing more left leaning topics, as well as uplifting marginalized voices! (ALSO Probably gonna make posts fangirling over Hasan Piker sometimes!! lol) Lifestyle content, this includes story times ranging from extremely hilarious and chaotic to extremely depressing, as well as self love/care content and philosophical and spiritual content exploring my relationship with the world around me, exploring my relationship with my body, and my inner child.

[guardian-angle22]

Much as I would love to see a Muslim/hijabi woman on tv. Most likely wouldn't want to be on tv since it goes against their beliefs. I'm ok with Natacha in this role bc I love her and I appreciate what LS has done with showing respect as the show has continued

[response to my post here]

First off, thank you for the insight/feedback on the accuracy, and the prayer part in particular! I had thought the location she was praying in was inaccurate but that wasn’t something I saw mentioned a lot at the time of the initial backlash to that scene. So I appreciate the information. 💜

I definitely head canon that when Owen rebuilt the firehouse (for the 2nd time!) he made sure there was a dedicated quiet room. Not only would it be important to have for Marjan or anyone else that works at the firehouse with them of Muslim faith to pray in, but also they have stressful and emotional jobs! Having a dedicated safe space at the firehouse to go when you need that kind of quiet privacy just makes sense to me.

As far as the casting part first: I think Natacha has done a great job and I appreciate the fact that she spoke up to the showrunners after hearing feedback from Muslim viewers. and from what I heard of her talking at the most recent convention, she has some great ideas of exploring various intersectionality that is found within that religion and I think that’s great and really hope they do explore some of those things.

My desire for an actual hijabi woman to have been chosen for this part was mainly based off experiences I witnessed from a previous fandom, Skam. IDK if you ever watched it, but the 4th season focused on a Muslim girl in high school, Sana, played by an actress who was actually Muslim, Iman Meskini, who was fantastic. The show writer/creator/producer relied a lot on her knowledge and lived experience when filming things. Then the Skam remakes happened… and another iteration of the show did not bother to get an actual Muslim to play that character and I remember very vividly the negative experiences a lot of the Muslim people in fandom had based off choices that were made and how that character was portrayed. Iman herself spoke up about how much better it was to have someone with the lived experience, who knew what it was like, acting in a role like that. I love this quote from her too: "I never dreamt about being an actress, because I never saw an actress with hijab on. I didn’t even see it as an option or a possibility at all until I became that example that it is possible."

I definitely can appreciate and understand how nuanced the discussion of actors playing parts that aren’t their own experience truly is though. I think the wars that are waged online about actors who play queer parts especially is a big thing happening in culture right now and I truly understand a lot of varying sides to those kinds of discussions. I know it might not always be possible for own voices actors to play parts like this, but I just feel like the best case scenario in a role like Marjan would have been for it to be played by a hijabi woman. That doesn’t mean I think Natacha is in the wrong for taking the role or that it was a terrible mistake for her to have been cast. Just that there was a better scenario that I had hoped for, that didn’t end up happening. and that's okay.

Now the corn silo story: That interview with Natacha where she said there were things that got cut from that storyline makes me really sad because I wish we could have gotten a better resolution to it. Maybe it would have been exactly what you're mentioning here too - clarifying for the viewers that not everyone in the mosque felt that way and it was just pettiness amongst some of them. Sadly, I guess we'll never know exactly what that would have looked like. It makes me a little sad that the only time we've even seen the mosque she goes to was in that episode in season one. I really really hope we get a chance to see some more storylines for Marjan that can include her faith and her mosque but more of how they're positively impacting her life instead.

(I don't have any relevant Marjan reaction gifs since I mainly use my fave Paul, so have this gif of her being absolutely adorable instead)

[askgothamshitty]

https://www.tumblr.com/askgothamshitty/783588020211286016/ummmmmmwhat-does-he-mean?source=share

Racialized woman here 🙋🏾‍♀️

Personally, I don't know what he is actually referring to here. Scrolling through their more recent tweets there is spme more clarity but definitely shortcomings in their wording.

I'm not making any sense lol. Had to delete a whole incoherent rant my my

What i want to say is yes. What he is saying is correct. However, it is not related to feminism. It is related to whiteness and white power. The limitation within feminist discourse is the lack of intersectionality; the idea that all men hold power over all women. This creates a space for white women to overlook their role in imperialism and colonialism. It also allows some feminists to continue to perpetuate harmful notions of male sexuality that lead to the targeting and abuse of racialized men (think of that whole Uber eats debacle). But his choice to be vague leaves it open for interpretation, i.e., the attraction of incels.

That is one of the issues with men who want to speak of gendered issues that mainly affect men. They're not making their opinions repulsive to right-wing men. Even if they don't agree with these men, they're giving them ammo and academically backed talking points.

A good feminist is able to recognize that rape is a form of violence, and like all violence, it can be used to establish power in a hierarchical society. Therefore, the raping of men is important to any conversation about the harm of rape and sexual violence. Rape being used as a tool of imperialism is a good example of this. But just because women participate in this doesn't mean that feminists are OK with it.

The thing is, though, that Curry and his followers denounce intersectionality too (and black feminism generally). They argue it perpetuates anti-black misandry.

Many go so far as to deny that black men have any power, privilege, advantage, etc. over black women. If you bring up rape and DV, they will either say it’s reciprocal or dismiss it altogether as irrelevant.

This is the community where Suki’s Mom/Samantha gets her talking points BTW.

[frankieparisrose]

my 3rd birThday

Asking a Transgender Person

Content WarningI’m not going to assume I can list your triggers and won’t try.Please understand, all my content will always have an implied warning.

Happy birThday to me!! I’m three!!

I’ll answer the “Transgender” questions and cover some shit you never actually asked (but you wanted to ask and it’s likely you need to know anyhow). A few answers will be non-answers. It’s okay if you don’t like that. You need to get used to it. Nobody has to answer anyone’s questions. It’s that simple. I’m also going to answer in uncomfortable ways that are necessary to convey the truth, and a little of how it feels to be someone who is not cisgendered or straight.

Know that I am my own person. My ideas are not inherently “correct”, nor do they have an implication to other Transgender or Queer people’s thoughts. Every person you talk to is their own person, Transgender or not.

Because there are things you can google, like the definition of “nonbinary” or “AMAB”, I certainly will not be addressing those items aside from: Go look it up yourself. Yes, really. If you’re in my realm of existence, at this point in history, you must be exhausted - so, imagine that but for like your entire life. If you can’t google it or find a blog, then you ask the question after you’ve gained consent to do so. Until then, learn to use your resources. We are in the information age. Go get it. You can do it.

Consider this your personalized piece for the crap you can’t google [easily or painlessly]. I might be Trans but I’m white (even if I’m Puerto Rican) and “male passing”. I will do my best to equally expose my privileges, internal tensions of intersectionality, and real life experiences I have as that person type.

Now we can get to the first and most important question: What’s my favorite dinosaur? I’ll lose a bunch of you here but we’ll move on quick - The best dinos are the herbivores. Like how can you be that giant and only eat plants. How do you get your protein? Anyway.. I’m vegan and just trying to really be a dinosaur when I grow up.

Along with my they/them pronouns, I accept Captain as an honorific (why do we still use these for real) and I identify as a Prehistoric Dino.

Next, let’s go with the “[private] parts / junk / what’s in your pants / genitalia / born with a-” stuff... You mean: What kind of crotch do I have? ..Does the sudden swing into that topic make you uncomfy? Yeah us too every time no matter what so this subject is never okay to ask about out of nowhere period ever forever - cool? great.

Truest answer: Someone’s body parts are literally never any of your business. Never. It’s never your business. It’s also .never. your business to discuss someone else’s anything with others.

It is, however, your duty as “an ally” to help protect anyone being asked things that people have zero business approaching them on. Absolutely it is your job to tell your bigot dad at xmas brunch that it’s actually pretty disgusting to be wondering about a stranger’s private areas.. Totally up to you to remind your “concerned” auntie how weird it is to be a full adult body policing bully, when you clearly remember her contemplating a big fake set of boobies for your dad- I mean uncle’s admiration.. Those are your areas to shake up when it’s about someone else’s privacy. Feel free to make it as awkward as possible and please ask ignorant questions.

Yes, I know you still want “a real answer”..

Here are more truths:

PLENTY of humans are born WITHOUT a clear distinction of “male or female” genitals. Regardless, this is a separate trait from that individual’s chromosomes, sexuality, or gender identity / expression. Some people take hormones to help their body, cis or trans. Some people have gender affirming surgeries, elective or not, cis or trans.

I have had one surgery. I do not like the idea of ever having surgery, even if I want the things it could give me. It’s kinda just how I am. If I don’t feel I have to do it, I’ll avoid it.

It took about 20 years to finally have my hysterectomy. I fought for that fucking surgery. I had been actively trying since I was a very young teenager.

This had and has nothing to do with my trans-ness. Nor does it necessarily give any indication of my external or internal parts, any other piece of my anatomy, biology or bodily chemistry. It does mean I was assigned (F) female at birth - yup, regardless of my chromosomes or external “parts” or anything else you could think would have weighed in.

I have considered other surgeries but they still feel “cosmetic” enough that I’m not interested in the risks. That could change but I don’t think much about it. I’m lucky. That is not most Trans people’s experience, as far as I can tell.

As for the question, “how’s it hangin’?” Well… however I want it to. Yall should seriously get out there and try an adult store or the internet. They even make cock cages if you want something smaller or pocket if you prefer a hole. I’m just saying, I can basically have whatever I want.. Or whatever my partner wants. ..Again, I’m just saying.. It’s not even that kink, you know?

So… “It” works just fine. Sex organs and potty parts both are good to go now that my internal problem guts were removed. People who have had particular surgeries could answer the question of function better depending on what is foundationally being asked, but I have general opinion as a Transgender person: Unless the patient lands a terrible or abusive surgical team, the result is almost always an increase of happiness, self acceptance, and personal validation. If there is a “function” for any gender affirming care, it is simply the improvement of the patient’s well being. I could almost promise that outcome from any of us privileged enough to receive our necessary healthcare, including but not limited to surgery.

My “transition”-ing isn’t really a transition. To “fully transition” probably isn’t a thing for me. I was never a “girl” and I was never a “boy”. When people thought I was a girl, they would tell me I was too man-ish, vagina or not. Passing as a cis-man but being nonbinary is a gross tornado of privilege I currently live inside. If they find out I’m “transgender” though, suddenly I’ll never be good enough to “be a man” - regardless of having a penis or not, apparently.

By definition, I am transgender because the “F” marker they assigned to my person is incorrect. For me, it is that dry. I am neither a man nor a woman but “must be” assigned to one or the other in this country. That incongruence is what objectively defines my Transgender-ness.

I cannot “just be a femme guy or butch girl” because I’m not those. My mom would always say “you’re not a fucking boy”, probably actually referring to my clothes, and I was confused every time because like… yeah… correct… I’m not a boy.. I don’t want to be a boy.. But I’m not a girl either and definitely don’t want to be that or a woman.

Cisgendered people don’t have to process these feelings and I’m almost certain they never get asked “how do you know you’re cisgender” or ignorant shit like “are you sure” or “well, have you tried….”

I’m nonbinary. I’m transgender. And, I don’t have to elaborate more about it. Don’t ask me “how I know.” Ask a real question if you’re going to stick your head out. I know that feels harsh but really contemplate what you’re asking that human - rather, understand what you are saying about that human when you ask things of that nature. Try to recognize microaggressions within yourself. It will help keep you from dehumanizing people.

I do HAVE TO be on hormones because I lack the organs to produce them in house. I’ll literally die without HRT. Let’s also not assume my ovary removal was the only reason for needing that life-saving medication (yeah life-saving for cisgender folks, too). There are only two choices of HRT (NEITHER OF WHICH ARE “MALE OR FEMALE HORMONES”) and I was sick, figuratively and physically, from what I had been given up to that hysto-time. When I got a choice, because I HAD TO choose, I picked Testosterone. I wanted Testosterone.

It is one of the only things I’ve ever been able to choose about my body and it was the best decision. Yup, even if that “makes me Transgender”. Fine.

What’s my biggest worry as a Transgender person? Being murdered. The average age of trans people is 36 years old.

What’s the worst part about being Transgender for me? Other people. 1000% other people. Hate and rejection and bigotry from other people. That transfers into laws and those dangers bleed into my entire existence.

No, my family does not accept me. There are a handful I was lucky enough to keep. They mean everything, even if we barely get to talk because real life still exists in this shit pile.

Coming out is always the hardest part of being Queer. It doesn’t really matter who you’re coming out to. Telling people I’m Transgender is always the hardest detail about being Trans. You get harassed (in every way you can think of) for coming out and forever after, whether from family or strangers. Constant rejection reminders and invalidations of your person become part of existing, hiding at home or passing in public or not.

Coming out happens over and over and over and over and over again. We’re also EXPECTED to out ourselves for the “comfort” of others. If that occurs, we are still usually the victims of violence after. If we don’t out ourselves, we are still usually the victims of violence after - but this time for “lying”, due to not outing ourselves.

Everyone thinks I’m a man now. I know, I know - you can always tell… Here’s a secret: no you fucking can’t. NO. YOU. CAN’T. I think on my good days, people think I’m some punk boy. It’s not the best when they think I’m a gay guy. The worst is when they are confused by me.

“Passing” is the worst. Passing means I have to use the men’s room. It means transphobic lesbians are mad at my gained “male” privilege. I’m avoided by women in public, and I can’t say I blame them. I’m afraid of men, too. My public pronouns, undecided by me, are “he/him/his/sir/bro” or “brother” if you’re the cop pulling me over. Dude bros now think I’m one of the dude bros. You cannot fathom the things men say to other men or to me because they’ve decided I’m a man.

Transitioning, or having a mustache if you’re me, has changed my life completely.

I have to hide. Yeah for like fucking safety reasons. Imagine if everything you were as a person - straight, cis, white, married, have kids, typical job, maybe even a degree - was the opposite of what society has decided was normal. That’s how my life changed. It all changed. Try being rejected by almost your entire people group and ask yourself how life would change.

I don’t have an answer to “how long have you known” because that’s not a real question. How long have I had language or space to express what my gender is or isn’t? Not very long. But… I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NONBINARY. I HAVE ALWAYS “KNOWN” I WASN’T A GIRL OR A BOY. ALWAYS. Always. Forever. Since the beginning of my being. Since before someone suggested my being was wrong. There isn’t anything to “know” until society fucks it up for us and asks us to find out, for them, while we attempt explain our existence.

What would make it easier to come out as Queer? Stop making us come out. Literally, let us be [ourselves]. Nobody has to come out as cisgender, why the fuck do I have to come out as anything? It’s not a real question. Other people’s “comfort” is never a reason but that’s why we have to “come out” as anything. Being Transgender is only something to be outed because everyone else makes it that way.

Transgender people don’t get to experience anything as our full selves, adults or children, in this society. I feel like I missed everything as a kid. I didn’t get to be a kid, mainly for reasons outside of my gender identity, but it would have been better to be myself while not getting to be a kid all the same. I still have to make sure I’m picking the clothes I WANT to wear instead of my mom’s preferred method of dressing me, if that shows you anything.

so… What would I tell my younger self? I don’t honestly know. Maybe something normal like: You’re okay. There is nothing wrong with who you are no matter what anyone says. Trust yourself because they can’t possibly know who you are unless you show and tell them. It’s okay to be mad at them. It’s also okay to feel good or happy or any of those things you rarely gain access to. It’s okay to be yourself. …Yeah even in a red-orange baggy t-shirt your mom hates while you play the saxophone she made you “choose” for your instrument. That’s okay, too - because you switch hard and very well to the whole brass section in 8th grade. Band will be one of your best parts of life and that will keep you alive for longer than you understand. …But yeah, you’re perfectly fine… Really. You is fine. Probably even good. Probably even loveable. There is no answer large enough to encompass how it could have been different for my child self. That’s basically asking “so, how different do you think childhood would have been were you able to be yourself instead of whatever you thought you had to be?” I don’t think I could answer that large of an order outside of writing a whole ass book that I’m not qualified to pen.

The best part about being Trans is that I get to be an adult making my own decisions and learning what part of my kid self was killed. I still don’t know who I am, but it’s really fucking nice to be finding it out finally. That is also my favorite, the most exciting, and surprising part about being trans: getting to be myself.

Frankie is short for Francis. The name question is sort of funny to me. My dad doesn’t go by his “real” or first name and stone cold refuses to. My great-grandpa, grandpa, dad and his only full brother all have the same first name. Nobody ever asks them where they came up with that shit. Calling four different people, who are all immediately related, the same name is far more interesting (really, i think it’s fucking weird and hilarious) than how any Transgender person came up with their name. I’m almost sure they’re also never questioned if they changed their names officially or not, or what it says on their license, or how they’re labeled on their birth certificate.

Francis Paris Rose is a pseudonym I felt I needed for safety reasons. I did it so I could hide. I assume I came up with it like people would name a baby or pet. I had some things that mattered and some that didn’t, and that’s the name I devised. It was for internet safety in my writing until it caught on at work and functioned really well, therefore becoming [mostly] permanent.

Transgender people need you to protect us so we can be ourselves. We need everyone who isn’t us, to show us that we can be ourselves 110% of the time. You have to fight for us. You have to vote for us. You have to look for queer people to know. You have to ask questions, and with some fucking respect. You have to expect us not to answer you. You have to know that you are privileged as a cisgender person. You have to put yourself in our place. You have to search for answers with minorities in mind. You have to care enough to be the most uncomfortable you’ll ever be, to fight people you never thought you’d have to combat, in order to help others you’ll never meet. You have to come out for us, too. And be satisfied with nothing in return. Maybe what you can get out of it is being happy you can call your friend by the name they ask in public, and nobody is in danger or feels afraid.

I’m one person. I’m Transgender. I’m still only one person. I’m not the only one.

[doberbutts]

i see the way people have taken intersectionality to mean 'you're privileged bc of one identity and oppressed bc of another therefore you're privileged' so often in radfem circles regarding marginalized men and it sure is fascinating to me because they're going on about how black men are oppressed for their blackness and not their masculinity, but then, somehow.....none of them wants to acknowledge the way white women are privileged for their whiteness. they change the definition of intersectionality to fit their narrative in a way that is just like. say the quiet part out loud.

if you're going to use intersectionality to disguise your racism, homophobia, ableism, transphobia, say that (men who are poc, gay, disabled, trans, aren't oppressed for being men, they're oppressed for all of those identities). you're practically begging to but you know you'd get shit for it so you steal terms like these and use them to get people on board. like....it's so transparent and i'm so tired of white people taking black theory and distorting the meaning and then those posts taking off and going viral and reinforcing the misunderstanding of that theory.

The very end of the article sums up your point about marginalized men:

Indeed, intersectionality is intended to ask a lot of individuals and movements alike, requiring that efforts to address one form of oppression take others into account. Efforts to fight racism would require examining other forms of prejudice (like anti-Semitism, for example); efforts to eliminate gender disparities would require examining how women of color experience gender bias differently from white women (and how nonwhite men do too, compared to white men).

And it's important to keep in mind the original context for which Crenshaw coined the term. Examining a case in which black women were told there was no evident discrimination in employment, with employers citing that they hired both black men (so surely can't be racist) and white women (so surely can't be sexist), while the black women argued that they were being skipped over due to being a combination of those factors rather than just one or the other. In this way, black women were at a specific intersection of discrimination, one in which it was impossible to separate the "black" from the "woman".

And when viewing things through an intersectional lens, we discover that we are all culpable of harm towards each other and that no one is fully innocent. It is important to then address the power imbalance by acknowledging and reconciling with these differences in experiences, rather than continuing to posit that one experience must take precedence over any of the others.

Instead there is this focus on uniqueness to the point where people rabidly insist that no one else shares similar experiences to their specific intersection. But black theory tells us this is not true- to dismantle anti-black racism we must examine and dismantle other forms of ethnic oppression and discrimination. To dismantle misogyny we must examine and dismantle other forms of sexism and gender-based oppression, yes, even that of men, like it or not the very coiner of the term mentions that when marginalization comes into play, gender still plays a role in the oppression of marginalized men.

As I have said multiple times on this blog, most of what I opine here is black feminist theory and black antiracist theory. I was raised by a deaf black man who grew up during the Civil Rights Movement. I'm usually getting this straight from the source here, folks.

(Also also the foundational ideals of intersectionality were written before Crenshaw by W. E. B. Du Bois- but he did not take gender or gender identity into account when he wrote his theory, and Crenshaw was- rightfully- unsatisfied with that.)

People often don't like doing this because it is hard. And because at some point you take a step back from what you've uncovered and go "hey wait a second, that means the whole system stinks, even the part I actually like". And that's a difficult situation to reconcile because it means to truly rid ourselves of these problems, we would need a complete and total society reform, and that is so very difficult and most people will not be on board for that.

And this is where a lot of the pushback happens, and the deliberate misunderstanding, because it's easier to go "you just want to be a victim" than to examine that maybe we are all victims of the system. It's where we get people saying "wokeness is a ploy installed by the Jewish elite to incite the black mob to purge the country of white people" when the concept of being woke was about paying attention to your political and physical surroundings and making smart, safe choices for your community rather than letting barely-disguised dangerous people (violent racists) and politics (segregation and Jim Crow laws) continue unchecked. It's where we get people saying "black lives matter hates cops and wants to kill all cops and hunt them for sport" when BLM was founded by people who were just tired of their community members being killed in the street for nonsense crimes (or no crimes at all) and wanted the killings to stop. It's where we get people woefully misunderstanding defund the police and prison abolition and civil disobedience and even boycotts and walk-outs and sit-ins and strikes and more.

And it's where we get people hearing someone say "I am hurt in this way, because of the sum of my whole identity, and it informs the way people harm me" and react with "LEARN INTERSECTIONALITY". Most recently, a white disabled person telling a black disabled person to learn intersectionality because the black disabled person (ME) said it's better to meet as many people's accessibility needs as possible rather than prioritize one over the other.

And this is why I do not trust black theory in white mouths because time and time again white people will pick and choose what parts of black theory apply to them that they like, separate them from the context, and then use those parts as a bludgeon to silence black people who are talking about the rest.

[forevergulag]

at the center of the problems with this whole post is lack of class consciousness, and furthermore, belief that authority is inherently Moral and Bad. Because of your failure to properly analyze Marxist and Marxist-Leninist theory, you resort to throwing your favorite Badism words at us in a attempt to feel superior, and at your worst, just completely making shit up, such as this.

We should always be aware that it isn't some innocent mistake that authoritarian "leftists" have constantly failed to acknowledge systems of power other than a vulgar "anti-capitalism" or "anti-imperialism",

marxist-leninists, of which you are clearly vagueing about, actually promote a political structure to prevent ideological ossification and the growth of revisionism in the Party. as such, vulgar anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism as a criticism simply falls flat. furthermore, your attempt to jacket an evil conspiracy to kill leftism onto this nonexistent behavior falls even further flat. dedicated, practiced ML's are also often the first to not only criticize the failings of former and current DOTP's, but the first to write a concise one as well.

"Whoops, we've acknowledged one abusive hierarchy, but the other ones slipped through our fingers, silly us!" Nope. The reason this analysis of power isn't included in their ideology and praxis is because they consider these hierarchies useful to their projects.

again, this behavior simply does not exist. you are making up a person to get mad at. secondly, hierarchies(not the vague Badism used here) are actually important to the socialist project, because they are the socialist project. socialism, in its acrual definition, is a dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that the proletariat abolishes the bourgeois state specifically, builds their own, and uses it to enforce and protect proletarian interests and the gradual dissolution of class.

This is why they'll mock or ignore discourse related to youth liberation, disability justice, gender self-determination or anti-patriarchal struggle, for example, or engage in apologetics for capitalist regimes in other countries -- they want to "have their cake, and eat it too".

while this is a fault of individual marxists, the party line, and the line of all successful socialist states, is pro-youth liberation, pro-disability justice(to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability), and pro-anti-patriarchal struggle. in the past, certain socialist states were homophobic and transphobic in policy, but in Cuba for example, it went from horrible policies on queer people to one of the best nations in the world in that issue.

The phrase "have their cake, and eat it too" makes nearly no sense here, but my best interpretation is that you mean we Evil Authoritarians seek only to oppress people for fun, which is. a bit of a baseless claim. also, i have literally never met or heard of any ML who supports “capitalist regimes”, but of course i know you just mean AES.

A key reason why "the left", as some might call it, is not as powerful as it could be isn't because of some lack of discipline (or "degeneracy"), but rather a lack of intersectionality, a criticism that many of those within the black radical tradition, (black feminists and transfeminists more specifically,) have been highlighting in one way or another for at least 50 years.

You quote “the left” as if you are acknowledgeing how vague and useless of a term it is, then, somehow, propose that the entire “left” is “failing” because of a lack of.. intersectionalism in analysis? does this word actually mean anything or is it just a Goodism?

no, the “left” is “failing” not because of a lack of goodism, but because of real material things and ideological currents such as, and mostly, revisionism. (heightened by presence in the imperial core, which is probably the only place this proposal the “left” is “failing” could ever be even slightly true, and the most likely place this sentiment came from.) if you would think dialectically for but a moment, you might be able to see that the “left” will only continue to “fail” less as times go on and conditions worsen for the proletariat.

Authoritarian "leftists" don't want to sacrifice the power that these hierarchies afford them, which explains why they're largely not opposed to prisons, borders, police, the enforcement of gender roles and even capitalism itself, if it's under the purview of the "socialist" ("workers") state and its bureaucrats.

harkening back to your 3rd paragraph, you are making baseless claims again. and also these claims do not explain why we are “not opposed” to prisons, police, and borders. the prisons and police, as part of the state, which is a tool the proletariat must claim to build communism, we are not opposed to for hopefully obvious reasons. borders, however, are a different story. true marxists are internationalist, so the only borders we support are cases like the berlin wall,an action to protect proletarian interests. another action historically taken to build the proletariat as a class and improve living conditions is the institution of various economic reforms, commonly called “state capitalism” by freaks who know nothing about anything. consider the NEP, which was the conversion of state enterprises in the USSR, which was all enterprises, to a profit motive in order to drastically increase productivity in a very hard time. it did exactly that. Consider Reform and Opening Up, which bend imperial capital to the advantage of the proletariat, and helped build the powerful and broad industrial base the PRC has today.

It's simply a myth that we can address capitalism while leaving racism, ableism and misogyny etc. intact, as if they aren't mutually reinforced by one another, as if fascists and reactionaries will forget that they exist once capital is abolished. This is a fantasy, a delusion.

i do agree with you, slightly, on this one. both “abolitionist” thought and not-really-utopian-but-kind-of-utopian thought are fundamentally flawed. Class struggle creates the material conditions for everything mentioned here, and as such they can only be abolished completely in tandem with class, but often the real and tangible effort that has been taken and will need to be taken to disestablish this thought will be forgotten and ignored, like you have been doing. (also fascism can not exist without the bourgeoisie)

Authcoms love to pose questions like "without a state to enforce class rule, how will the proletariat defend itself?" but a better question would be: "if we fail to acknowledge the hierarchies that atomize and disempower the masses, how could we ever be a threat to capitalists in the first place? how would abandoning the most vulnerable populations serve the interests of the "working class" and "anti-imperial" struggle?

we pose this question because it is one anarchists can never answer. your “better question”, besides being an obvious deflection, is again completely lacking any kind of class perspective.(what a surprise!) disempowerment and atomization of The Masses™️ come not from a Hierarchy inherent to the state, but from the oppressing class(the bourgeois) suppressing revolutionary struggle, be it through the state and “direct” political violence, or through the injection of bourgeois thought into revolutionary movements. (for simplicity i am lumping ideological trends caused by the material conditions of capitalism and capitalist-imperialism such as racism into “bourgeois thought”.)

i would like not to critique essentially the same baseless conjecture twice, (that of “socialism will leave behind ‘the most vulnerable’”) so again,

to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.

Similarly, a significant portion of the world's population are currently incarcerated. If we don't abolish prisons, allowing the State to continue extracting labor from prisoners and destabilizing untold millions of social relations in the process, how can we hope to match or exceed their powers?

when the proletariat takes the state, it will not be as simple as just moving the bourgeois state with its antiquated and specific functions created to aid the bourgeois(i.e. parlementarism) into proletarian hands, but the destruction of the bourgeois state, of its old roles and functions, and the creation of a unique proletarian state. if, perhaps, it was that simple, however, then what cause would the proletariat have in keeping those same proletarian prisoners and continuing punishing them for things they did against bourgeois interests.

If we do not challenge the capitalist, productivist logic of endless resource accumulation, with its constant pollution of the environment and the displacement and erasure of indigenous peoples and non-human animals, there will be no habitable planet left for us during this "revolution", because we will have destroyed all of it in the name of profit...so what would be the point?

the problems you are here speaking of do not stem from “authoritarian communists” or from simple “endless resource accumulation”, but from the capitalist class and the conditions created by them (see; imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism). the building of a broad industrial base is necessary under socialism, but the socialism part is not what causes global warming. in current AES and future socialist states, it is extremely difficult to maintain the balance between powerful industrial base and global warming, but as these states are proletarian, they are doing what they can to stop climate change. again, some states may have, for example, profit based state enterprises, or national bourgeois(as most do; proletarian cannot exist without bourgeois), or economic reforms encouraging imperialists to export capital to the country, but these are steps taken not because of greed, but to empower the proletariat. read “role and functions of the trade unions under the New Economic Policy.

These aren't minor concerns that we can put off indefinitely, and it isn't some innocent mistake that they are left out of the discourse, but are instead deliberate attempts to co-opt liberation struggle for the sake of advancing counter-revolution and authoritarian projects.

every AES agrees with you here. global warming is one of the biggest concerns, and as such is being dealt with. however, this also adds to one of the hundreds of reasons your attempt to jacket the only successful revolutionary movements with an evil conspiracy to stop all revolution falls flat. you are deeply, deeply unserious.

It's no wonder then, that they are eager to dismiss any criticism of their projects the result of "western propaganda", as if these same critiques aren't leveraged by very people belonging to populations they constantly tokenize whenever it suits their agenda.

Western imperialism is responsible for the murder of most of the socialist states in the world. in order to generate more support and consent, imperialist press will do as much as they can to convince imperial core proletarians that imperialism is a good thing, and that all proletarian movements are evil. as such, we are quick to dismiss these bourgeois lies, but we still criticize the true failings of actual socialism.

They'd much rather treat every marginalized community as some monolith or as primitive victims in need of saving and representation by a vanguard. This chauvinist, colonial, assimilationist, antisocial attitude is endemic in (often white,) authoritarian circles, because it forms the basis of their position towards racial and gender hierarchies, that they are a natural and inevitable factor of organization itself. They are wrong.

In this sense, they aren't meaningfully different from the capitalists they pretend to hate so much. In truth, they are just jealous and greedy for more cake.

for this final quote i have only one thing;

We should always be aware that it isn't some innocent mistake that authoritarian "leftists" have constantly failed to acknowledge systems of power other than a vulgar "anti-capitalism" or "anti-imperialism", like they've carelessly left out an ingredient in a cake recipe.

"Whoops, we've acknowledged one abusive hierarchy, but the other ones slipped through our fingers, silly us!" Nope. The reason this analysis of power isn't included in their ideology and praxis is because they consider these hierarchies useful to their projects.

This is why they'll mock or ignore discourse related to youth liberation, disability justice, gender self-determination or anti-patriarchal struggle, for example, or engage in apologetics for capitalist regimes in other countries -- they want to "have their cake, and eat it too".

A key reason why "the left", as some might call it, is not as powerful as it could be isn't because of some lack of discipline (or "degeneracy"), but rather a lack of intersectionality, a criticism that many of those within the black radical tradition, (black feminists and transfeminists more specifically,) have been highlighting in one way or another for at least 50 years.

Authoritarian "leftists" don't want to sacrifice the power that these hierarchies afford them, which explains why they're largely not opposed to prisons, borders, police, the enforcement of gender roles and even capitalism itself, if it's under the purview of the "socialist" ("workers") state and its bureaucrats.

And this is why I keep putting "leftist" in quotes...We're not free until we're all free, so the implication that we should settle for addressing one or two systems of domination while allowing all the others to flourish until we address them in some vague point in the far future is a distortion of what truly radical liberatory politics should entail.

It's simply a myth that we can address capitalism while leaving racism, ableism and misogyny etc. intact, as if they aren't mutually reinforced by one another, as if fascists and reactionaries will forget that they exist once capital is abolished. This is a fantasy, a delusion.

Authcoms love to pose questions like "without a state to enforce class rule, how will the proletariat defend itself?" but a better question would be: "if we fail to acknowledge the hierarchies that atomize and disempower the masses, how could we ever be a threat to capitalists in the first place? how would abandoning the most vulnerable populations serve the interests of the "working class" and "anti-imperial" struggle?

For example, (cis) women make up approximately 50% of the world's population -- so if women are still subjugated by patriarchal rule and the gendered division of labor, how will we have the numbers to fight?

Similarly, a significant portion of the world's population are currently incarcerated. If we don't abolish prisons, allowing the State to continue extracting labor from prisoners and destabilizing untold millions of social relations in the process, how can we hope to match or exceed their powers?

If we do not challenge the capitalist, productivist logic of endless resource accumulation, with its constant pollution of the environment and the displacement and erasure of indigenous peoples and non-human animals, there will be no habitable planet left for us during this "revolution", because we will have destroyed all of it in the name of profit...so what would be the point?

These aren't minor concerns that we can put off indefinitely, and it isn't some innocent mistake that they are left out of the discourse, but are instead deliberate attempts to co-opt liberation struggle for the sake of advancing counter-revolution and authoritarian projects.

It's no wonder then, that they are eager to dismiss any criticism of their projects the result of "western propaganda", as if these same critiques aren't leveraged by very people belonging to populations they constantly tokenize whenever it suits their agenda.

They'd much rather treat every marginalized community as some monolith or as primitive victims in need of saving and representation by a vanguard. This chauvinist, colonial, assimilationist, antisocial attitude is endemic in (often white,) authoritarian circles, because it forms the basis of their position towards racial and gender hierarchies, that they are a natural and inevitable factor of organization itself. They are wrong.

In this sense, they aren't meaningfully different from the capitalists they pretend to hate so much. In truth, they are just jealous and greedy for more cake.

[itsclydebitches]

I don't go here, but I really dislike how ubiquitous the notion has become in fandom that 'strong and independent woman' is somehow mutually exclusive with 'woman in a romantic relationship/prioritizing romance'. I feel like that's the kind of attitude that leads to terrible readings like 'The Little Mermaid is anti-feminist because Ariel gives up her voice for a man' which requires ignoring several key aspects of the film's plot and Ariel's character specifically (such as the fact that she sings Part of Your World before she ever lays eyes on Eric, and she spent her entire life collecting artifacts from the surface world and arranging them in her grotto), nevermind the fact that a story where someone falls in love and values that highly enough to make significant changes to her life to fight for it would still have value! Because love has value!

Like you said, just because there are a lot of cases where female characters are reduced to love interests and nothing else doesn't mean a female character caring about love and being motivated by love means she can't also be strong and independent. I feel like a lot of people just swing the pendulum way too far in the other direction and seem to think that being in love is what devalued those female characters, and not the fact that they were (by and large) written to be accessories for the male characters they were attached to and had nothing else to contribute to the story.

That is the problem, not romantic storylines themselves.

Precisely, anon! I'm really glad you brought up The Little Mermaid, both because the latest adaptation showcases how important intersectionality is (a black mermaid getting the "generic" love story is not the same thing as another white mermaid getting it) and because I've had similar gripes about many fans' readings of Cinderella. To be clear, I think the Disney + princess craze is a complicated subject with an equally complicated impact on kids, but a lot of people will attempt to simplify that conversation down to, "It's bad because she wants a man." Putting aside that this is not, as discussed, inherently a bad thing... did we miss the part where she's in a clearly abusive household, wants only to experience one fun night, and happens to meet the Prince without ever actively aiming for that to happen? This is a debate my friend and I have had for years, to the point where "Cinderella" is a bit of a code-word for, "We're never going to agree on this topic and others are getting annoyed at our impassioned arguments, so can we just move on now?" lol

I experienced similar frustration back when Jupiter Ascending came out and -- putting aside the quality of the film (or supposed lack thereof) -- people were up in arms about how terrible it is that the woman lead needs to be rescued by the guy, with the reason for that terribleness boiling down to, presumably, the idea that a woman is automatically weak if she needs help. Meanwhile, I was reading things through the lens of the show's realism (of course the average cleaning lady is not going to be able to fight off alien kidnappers without assistance) as well as the joy of seeing parts of myself in a Sci-Fi/Fantasy story. I'm not physically strong. I'm not a martial artist. I'm not someone who's going to immediately come up with a cutting remark and satisfyingly punch someone in the face. As cool as that archetype is, it's reductive to present a Strong and Independent Woman as solely physically strong and romantically independent. That definition should -- and does -- mean a thousand different things!

I do get it. I often have a knee-jerk reaction to certain writing choices for women (there was a maybe baby plot-line for one of Ted Lasso's characters this season that, far more than Keeley, I've been side-eying), but overall I try to approach each story as the individual text that it is. Yes, there are issues with these trends across media... but is this story actually falling into those stereotypes and harmful depictions, or have we just trained ourselves to reject anything in this category by default?

[nellygwyn]

different anon, thoughts of harlots portrayal of historical sex work?

I got another anon asking for a similar thing so here it goes:

Season 1, in particular, I think, had a really nuanced approach to sex work, historical and contemporary. It says a lot that some of my friends who are full service sex workers felt it explored a lot of the complex thoughts they have about being sex workers. We had Charlotte and Emily who are both ambivalent and ambitious, practical, knowing that money is the most important thing in their world whilst also being unattainable for them in other socially acceptable careers (also, since I did my MA thesis on the rape of working class adolescent girls in Georgian London, where I basically found that working in a pub or as a servant in a house could just as unsavory, if not worse, as being a sex worker in the same time period, I like to think Charlotte in particular knows this very well and that's why she wants to control her own narrative so much). We also have Lucy, who hates it and is taken advantage of by her mother in many ways, and other characters who end up in the sex industry through ~Hogarthian~ methods i.e. tricked by a kindly older woman who turns out to be an unscrupulous brothel-keeper a la Mother Needham. This kind of thing certainly happened, though not as often as 18th century moralists might like you to think, but in the show, it plays into the overarching theme that this is a world where the people who should be looking after sex workers and making sure they aren't treated like shit literally do not care (which definitely mirrors our own times). Like, Emily likes sex work in many ways but when she experiences awful aspects of it? It's always because of powerful people letting other powerful people do whatever they want to these women....the only thing outside forces ever seem to do is moralise or take away their money, or punish them. People who have the power to actually transform the system are basically useless, except Josiah in S2 who initially starts off as useless but does later try to make amends.....he's just not powerful ENOUGH though.

I do wish they hadn't made so much of the '1 in 5 women in Georgian London sell sex' because....that's not necessarily a false statistic but it doesn't actually just include sex workers, it also includes women who lived with men they weren't married to which could've been a financial arrangement or could've been simply women living with long term partners. It also includes women who dabbled in sex work, which was extremely common in a world where other, more socially acceptable jobs for working women didn't always pay very well. We know that a lot of women who were in domestic service in Georgian London also had what we might call 'a side hustle' as sex workers, specifically strollers and bunters (sex workers who didn't work in a brothel and usually picked up clients/did work on the streets). I think Harlots did a good job of showing us like, sex workers who work in brothels but also more independent sex workers like Nancy and Violet, but it would've been nice to have a character who was a maid in a middle class home most of the time but occasionally dabbled in sex work in the late evening. It would've emphasised the theme of money being important and barely within reach, but also would've shown the reality of women's work in this period OUTSIDE OF sex work.

The diversity of the industry was also good, although it's a shame that the show kind of failed at showing us male sex workers, or queer sex workers - I mean, we did see mollies (contemporary name for gay men sex workers) but not in a particularly meaningful way imo. Plus, we could've had a trans woman sex worker, especially as there is precedent in this period! Princess Serefina, for example, was probably a transgender woman and one of the most famous sex workers of the early 18th century. But I think Harlots did show us the amount of women of colour who not only lived in Georgian London, but who worked there and not just as sex workers. We also had sex workers with disabilities, too. One of my favourite details is that Harriet Lennox is inspired by a real Georgian sex worker called Black Harriet who only employed sex workers of colour at her brothel (which Harriet Lennox also does in S2 and 3). And there is quite an admirable attempt to explore intersectionality in the series - Harriet doesn't just experience sexism but pretty awful racism (I mean, she literally used to be enslaved by the first man who made her his mistress)....and this changes the way she experiences the world.

My biggest criticism is of the way Charlotte was killed off. Well, first of all, I have an issue with the fact Season 3 put her in a relationship with a pimp, which is so fucked up on every level. Like, not even just a pimp but a pimp who tried to kill her and the women she lives with. Then, she ends up being ACTUALLY killed off by said pimp and his brother (also a pimp) in the most deranged way possible a.k.a getting in the way of a fight and being pushed down the stairs. So many stories about sex workers, historical and contemporary, employ the 'Dead Hooker' trope and I hate it and I especially hate it for this time period because dying violently or tragically as a sex worker doesn't have much basis in reality. Charlotte specifically was inspired by famous courtesans of the time like Kitty Fisher and Fanny Murray. Both of whom......met someone who was willing to keep them long term/marry them and left the industry, financially stable and contented. This series wanted to honour women like that but I don't understand how it could do that by killing Charlotte violently (and other characters violently). We know that most sex workers left the industry around their mid twenties, usually because they had found a long term keeper/husband or because they became actresses/singers in the London theatres (a job that had strong links to sex work and courtesanry at the time). There were so many options for Charlotte but the writers picked that one, as her exit. It just brings us back to the fact that for some people, sex workers don't deserve any kind of happy ending. In fact, John Cleland, the writer of the scandalous c. 1749 erotic novel 'Fanny Hill,' had his book banned and criticised not just because it was obscene but because Fanny never repents her life as a sex worker. Instead, she marries a decent man and has a decent life and explictly says she doesn't feel bad or upset about her old job. Like, that's an example from the actual time period so imagine my disappointment when history seemed to repeat itself in a period series c. 2019.

[milaswriting]

hi! i really hope it won't come off weird, or insensitive, but you're a big inspiration (and kind of a hero) when it comes to writing and just, creating. you actually made me want to try and make IF, but i'm absolutely terrified?? i'm scared that if i write a story, it wouldn't be inclusive enough, and i want to do the opposite, because i've seen some authors (especially book authors) use my ethnicity, identity and culture as just 'aesthetic' and i want to do everything to avoid doing it to someone elses identity (and internet sadly is not best place for fact checking as you can get 10 conflicting statements based on intersectionality and generations etc). so i guess i wanted to ask you - do you have similar anxiety or doubts or fears when you're writing, or when you were deciding the ethnicities for your characters?

sorry for the rambling, but i just really admire you and Golden is just... well, gold and i aspire to be half as good as you are 😔

hello! so sorry for the late reply. this isn’t weird or insensitive at all, thank you for your kind ask!

definitely write an IF! the pros definitely outweigh any cons. in terms of being inclusive, @/writingwithcolor is a great resource to use, especially this post -> here that has lots of links.

in terms of Golden, I’ve been okay with writing about ethnicity because 3 of the ROs I’m writing about are poc, and 2 are black so I relate to B and K in that sense.

for the new IF I’m writing, there are going to be more poc and choosing their ethnicities was very important to me, but also worrying because I want to get everything right — so what you’re feeling is very valid.

don’t let it put you off writing. there are beta readers and sensitivity readers that can help, alongside any poc you know that can help, too. by writing about characters of different ethnicities also helps you learn about them, so that’s another positive!!

I hope this helps and good luck with your writing! I’m sure it’ll go amazingly!

[emerald-studies]

Diverse Perspectives | Discussion 3

I sent some questions to @jasperwhitcock​ for her perspective as a POC woman and daughter of an immigrant.

[ It is required to participate and watch/read these discussions, in order to follow me. Participate or get tf out. We aren’t performative in my lil’ area on Tumblr.

This discussion isn’t representative of an entire population or meant to be super professional. It’s to share different perspectives and also is an opportunity for me to practice what I preach: intersectionality. If you’d like to participate in this series please send me a pm or an ask and I’ll get back to you ASAP. We can do a written, audio, or video interview.]

As a mixed person, do you feel isolated from your community?

J: If you mean community as in the community I currently live in, I’m fortunate enough to live in a very diverse place. Surrounding the city of Houston, there’s a lot of prejudice integrated into a lot of the suburban neighborhoods, but in terms of the city itself, I think the POC communities really uplift and support each other. I’m a concert photographer when there’s not a pandemic, and I’ve always appreciated the way latinos and black artists are respected in the indie community. Houston’s a very rap/hip hop/R&B city, so black artists are especially celebrated. There’s also great latinx bands that I know, latinx venue owners/employees, and latinx brands connected to the indie community. We’re very well represented in this area.

If you mean community as in the latinx community, I wouldn’t say isolated, but depending on the day, I might say that I can feel distanced at times. This isn’t particularly due to the latinx community itself, so much as it may be a distance that I create in my head. As a mixed person, I think there are times where you can feel confused on where you belong. I’ve brought up the quote before from the Selena movie, where Selena’s father Abraham is speaking on the potential difficulty of Selena being accepted in Mexico because of the fact she is Mexican American: “We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting!” It can be difficult at times to navigate your sense of belonging when you are in between two cultures because you want to recognize that you may have privileges someone of full Mexican descent may not have, but at the same time, your life is still very much defined by being Mexican and having Mexican blood while living in America too. You’re definitely not absolved from having latin experiences. Latina stand up comedian Anjelah Johnson made a joke in her stand up about there being a Latinx hierarchy. She said that Spanish speaking latinos are better than the rest of us who are not fluent in Spanish (such as herself), and it was funny because sometimes you do feel that that can be true. My tías will always ask me why I’m not fluent in Spanish, and my mom will be like “yeah, why don’t you?” and I’m always like… because y’all didn’t teach me! My parents speak Spanish to each other at home. My father is not only fluent in Spanish, but his Spanish is oftentimes superior to a lot of Spanish speakers according to my mom and my tíos. He used to teach English in Mexico, so there is no reason that my sister and I shouldn’t have been perfectly bilingual. The reason they didn’t teach us as children is because they didn’t want us to be speaking Spanglish. (Spoiler: it happened anyways). Around white people, I definitely feel that I am not a white person. I feel very much latina in a group of white people. But then around latin people, I sometimes feel white enough to feel a sense of shyness. I definitely feel more at home with latinx people, but overall in both groups, I definitely feel that I am mixed.

It doesn’t happen often, because I think although the majority of latinx people have pride in their background, the hyperawareness of our identities right now is relatively new, but there have been instances of latinx gatekeeping the latin identity. Growing up, I didn’t think about what I was labelled as or think about how my family structure is different to other families. I didn’t consider how in some areas, it is an abnormality to have an immigrant parent or a parent with an accent. I definitely noticed that my family was different, but I didn’t understand why until much later. My mom, her sisters and brothers, and my primos… They don’t live their lives with the awareness of being defined as Mexican immigrants. Of course, they again have pride in where they came from. They live as Mexicans and engage in Mexican culture, but overall, the way the youth today has really grasped onto the labelling of our identity is kind of a new thing. There are some young latinx people who do try to quantify and measure whether or not your experience is valid. I know it comes from a place of protectiveness of their own experience, but it’s ridiculous to gate keep because something that really characterizes latin culture is our warmth, our sense of family, our willingness to embrace other people as part of that. If you’re of latin american descent, you have a place in the latinx community.

Since your parents don’t have college degrees, do you believe college is important and/or necessary?

J: I think it depends! I think a lot of immigrant parents really push for their children to get a college education because they see that as opportunity, particularly when they did not earn college degrees themselves. I think college can be important depending on what you want to accomplish, but I also think it’s not completely necessary. For my career path as a photographer/videographer, I chose not to do college. I do think I would have enjoyed college because I like learning, but because it was something unnecessary for my job, I couldn’t justify the time invested or putting my parents into a difficult financial situation. Especially because my college education would have overlapped with my sister, and I saw how difficult it was to juggle handling my sister’s student loans. For my sister’s career path (she is studying to be a nutritionist/therapist to help teenagers with eating disorders), college was necessary.

Your Mom has been stuck in the US, unable to return to Mexico for awhile, has your Mom’s experience with immigration changed your views in some way?

J: As context, my father lived in Mexico for a decade and married my mom in Mexicali. They hadn’t planned to move to the United States, but when they came to the US to marry here so that she could have citizenship and be able to visit his family, there were complications that made it to where she couldn’t leave the country. Luckily, the time she was unexpectedly stuck in the United States didn’t last super long! Long enough to become comfortable enough to decide to settle down in California, but we have been able to travel to Mexico often. I think it really highlights how unnecessarily complicated a lot of the processes regarding immigration are. The people in the country who are very malicious about undocumented immigrants love to jump to saying, “well, why can’t they just become an American citizen?” when the reality is that every process in place has a lot of complications. Not everyone has access to the resources to be able to make these transitions happen smoothly. Also, the time it takes to acquire your visa is not an overnight thing. People severely underestimate the difficulty involved.

What do you think about the “hard-working immigrant” stereotype?

J: I hate the idea that immigrants work hard because they’re low-skilled, but I do love that there is a lot of pride in how motivated immigrants are. It’s always been a ridiculous claim that immigrants are taking American jobs. Immigrants work the jobs that the majority of Americans have no interest in doing, especially the people that make this complaint. For a country that prides itself on working to make your dreams come true, Americans neglect to recognize that immigrants have a drive that most Americans don’t have.

Which parent do you feel more connected to? Your Mother who’s an immigrant or your Father who was born in America?

J: I really do feel that I am a coalescence of both my parents, so I think I feel equally connected to each of them. I feel a very strong emotional connection and concern for my dad because his mental health suffers a lot. His mother had bipolar depression at a time where mental health was even more stigmatized, and she endured a lot of ridiculous, merciless treatments that are no longer utilized today. When he was nine years old, his mom committed suicide, and this was an event that really defined his life forever. I think that kind of heaviness passes down through your family. When my dad is not doing well, I feel really imbalanced and emotionally impacted even if I’m not home to witness it. It’s kind of like that idea of an invisible string tethering you to someone, and it’s a weight that I carry always. However, overall, he’s a very positive person. When he is going through his kind of manic highs, he’s a lot more of what I recognize of who my dad is. He’s creative, a musician, and deeply caring for other people. His mother’s death has empowered him to really try to make a difference and “paint a picture of a better tomorrow.” I’m a lot like my dad in personality, but in disposition, I’m so much like my mom. She’s tough and outspoken at home, but in public, it takes awhile for her to open up. My mom’s very selfless, kind, and very much shy and quiet. She definitely exemplifies a lot of the sacrifice that you see many immigrants make. I do like both sides of my family, but I definitely feel more at home with the Mexican side. My dad’s side is loud, vivacious, and very much funny, but I feel extremely shy around them. My sister and I have always felt a tiny bit left out. I think they’d be hurt to know we feel this way, but I definitely don’t think they do anything to intentionally enforce this division. But I think it developed because there is a bit of a cultural disconnect between my aunts and my mom. It’s also very interesting to me that when they first met my mom, my mom didn’t speak any English. It’s fascinating to consider how it might change your perception of someone to go from not being able to communicate with them to watching them learn your language. My mom enjoys the time that we do spend with my dad’s family, but she’s kind of the odd one out in that her humor isn’t the same and her experiences are so different. I think that my dad’s sister and brother’s families were able to connect in a stronger way, so sometimes my mom, my sister, and I feel just a little isolated. In those moments, I feel the most aware of my Mexican background. With my mom’s side of the family, it’s a lot more comfortable. My dad’s able to develop his humor in a way that translates well into Spanish, so he fits in very easily.

You’ve lived in a “Blue/more liberal” state and a “Red/more conservative” state, which state has affected you more?

J: Definitely the red state. Seeing how intensely and ridiculously conservative some southern people are has really radicalized me in a way. I feel overwhelmingly liberal because there’s a defensiveness that develops when you’re in a space like this where you have this intense disbelief that people hold the ideas that they do. Especially because in Texas, black and latinx culture is a major contributor to southern culture. There’s a lot to be said about how black culture shapes the south, but because I’m latina, I’m focusing on latinx culture with this question. White conservatives want our food, they want our work, but they don’t want us. I don’t understand how anyone can be all #TacoTuesday one day, and then the next, be anti-immigrant. If you really want Mexicans out of your country, then maybe you should start living your life without any Mexican influence. Stop eating Mexican food. Clean your own pool and mow your own lawn. It’s ignorant to speak down on immigrants when their life would be so altered to be rid of immigrants. They rely on immigrants. Their lives are shaped by immigrants and built by immigrants.

(I had to chime in here: )

 Are you proud of your parents?

J: Absolutely. As a young teenager, I had a lot of problems with my parents. I think I still have issues I’m working through as a result, but now that I’m older, I really do feel a deep sense of admiration and respect for them. Growing up really makes you view your parents differently and understand them as people rather than just as parents. I held onto a lot of anger and resentment, but I’ve come to truly see how they really did do their best. They’ve worked very hard, and I think not having everything that kids around me did really helped me grow into a more grateful person.

Have you faced discrimination for your race?

J: Of course, but in all honesty, it really rolls off my back. I think hate that is personally directed at me doesn’t bother me, but the discrimination that does affect me is anything directed or related to my mom. I remember my parents had a customer who made a really ugly complaint to my father about my mom’s english. My mom essentially handles most of the written communication with their business, and she still speaks and types in broken english often. The majority of my parents’ clients are latinx, so it’s typically not an issue, but it’s unbelievably offensive and ridiculous the assumptions people will make about your intelligence based on your english. The customer had no idea that the woman she’d been communicating with was my father’s wife rather than just an employee. It’s really sad how someone can see someone as unworthy of respect until they’re tied to a white man, and then they’re suddenly apologetic. This is another extremely mild example, but I’ll get a few laughs when I mispronounce something or don’t know how to say certain words. People always find it funny as though it’s embarrassing –– and it definitely can be –– but people forget I learned english from a woman who speaks two languages.

As the child of an immigrant, how has the anti immigrant talking point affected your mental health?

J: I think the toll the anti-immigrant bias in the United States has on immigrant children is a relevant conversation to have, but I think I’m very lucky in that I feel very tough in the face of that ignorance (which is not to say anyone whose mental health suffers as a result is not tough!) If anything, I feel pity for the people who are so hateful that they see other human beings in such a derogatory and entitled way. Similar to what I said before, my outrage really comes from a place of defensiveness for others. The talking point doesn’t hurt me, but it hurts me that people can speak about my family and my community the way they do. It hurts me that there are other immigrant children who have to work as hard as their parents to make their sacrifices worth it, and people are so insensitive as to not respect that. I’m pretty strong, but it does break my heart when my people are disrespected. If someone were to say something to me, that’s fine, but if i saw someone mistreating a little mexican lady in the store… I may be 5’3 but that don’t mean I won’t come for your ass. Okay, in all honesty, I’m really not a violent person. I’m more of a rise above kind of person because the hate someone has in their heart is not worth our time, but some people do need a chancla thrown at them to learn some respect.

In your opinion, in what ways does the Latinx community need more support?

J: I think because the latinx community is so much so composed of hard workers, people really need to support latin businesses more. That’s a direct way to impact latin lives. There’s an abundance of latin small business owners in every category. So many white kids love going to Cozumel for Spring Break and love wearing sombreros on Cinco De Mayo, but then the rest of the year, they have no care or respect for the authentic culture. For every dollar a white man makes, hispanic women still make statistically less than white women, asian women, black women, and native women. We gotta back up these businesses. Choose local taco shops or restaurants over chains. Choose online shops and Mexican boutiques over fast fashion. And this applies to everybody. We can always support black business or asian businesses over large competitors. It really does make an impact. I also think a lot of latinx children need access to better mental health resources. I’m lucky in that because my father struggles with mental health issues, mental health in my family wasn’t exactly a taboo, but in a lot of latin families, mental health is something that is hard for older parents to validate. Latin children need those resources. A simple google search of “latin mental health resources,” bring up a bunch of organizations that you can support. I think every POC community needs to be boosted right now because although we’ve been under attack, conversations about minority communities are being had by white people right now. We have their attention, and we do need their support to enact change because they have the power as the oppressor. We need to be going to bat protecting black people right now because of the insane damage the community has been enduring at the hands of police, and we need to be protecting immigrant children from what’s happening to them at the border. I know the election is extremely controversial right now, but I would urge anyone who has the ability to vote to really consider the importance of doing so. People love to be cynical about how our votes don’t matter, and I understand that cynicism, but a lot of immigrants don’t have the luxury of voting when the results of the election will directly impact their lives. I hate that there is no option of a president that will perfectly support POC communities, but there are options whose party is far more aligned with supporting and protecting POC communities than Trump is. Trump spews hate and fuels racism and prejudice. He calls Mexicans rapists and black protestors thugs. He encourages the blaming of the coronavirus on the asians in our country. He does not need any help winning the election. We need to get this hateful man out, and I strongly encourage anyone who can vote to do so.

--

Let’s have a discussion! Did you learn anything new from this conversation?

Let me know here.

-

To close out each post, I’d like to write a lil’ paragraph about the person I talk with:

I’m so lucky to have you as a friend darling. You always bring a smile to my face when we chat. You’re funny and so smart. I admire you deeply for being able to share your perspective in a clear way. Thank you for putting up with my 2 am messages lol 🖤🖤🖤🖤Your continued support makes me feel safe and very, very, loved. I hope I encourage the same feeling with you. 

You’re the best babe,

-Faithxx

[collegeessayguy]

Written with Charlotte West, with thanks to Matt Rubinoff (Strive for College) and Jamiere Abney (Colgate University) for their contributions.

HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENT?

The definition of a first generation college student is that you’ll be the first in your family to attend college. This means you may not be able to ask your parents about navigating the college application process and you might be the one explaining things like financial aid to them. “It doesn’t stop there,” notes Amanda Miller, the counselor and expert who helped write the financial aid sections of this book. “Once on campus speed bumps continue to pop up. My sister had no idea how many ‘credit hours’ would be a good idea, so she signed up for 21 credit hours her first semester. (That’s a LOT.) That lesson almost prompted her to quit before she realized others weren’t taking nearly as many classes. These easily preventable setbacks can make the whole college experience a bit more daunting for first-gens.”

Around a third of all college freshmen are first-gen, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Intersectionality here is important, too. Many first-generation students are also low-income and many are students of color.

ARE ALL FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS LOW-INCOME OR STUDENTS OF COLOR?

Nope!

WHO QUALIFIES AS A LOW-INCOME STUDENT?

The most common way colleges and universities define low-income students is by Pell grant eligibility. Pell grants fund students who have exceptional financial need and have not earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. Approximately 22.2 million students, or 32% of all undergraduates, receive Pell grants. Because they are grants and not loans, you don’t have to pay them back. Google “pell eligible” or look it up in the Common Data Set section B for the school you’re interested in to see how many students receive these grants.

Students who aren’t eligible for Pell grants can still struggle to cover the cost of higher education. Research shows a widening gap between financial aid and rising costs of living, especially in cities with expensive housing markets. (Check out researcher Sara Goldrick Rab’s book, Paying the Price, for more about this.)

Click the link at the very top to read the rest of this story.

Website | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram | Facebook | Pinterest

[grison-in-space]

*drawl* Doom, they're arguing that the "all about communism+ REALLY" push is a bad thing here.

Personally, I think that OP is railing against intersectionality here and cryptically advocating for reducing investment in solidarity among queer stakeholder communities, because they feel that their own most keenly held concerns are being dismissed as "frivolous" by larger movements concerned with triage and solidarity and that this is what explains increased emphasis on solidarity and a vagueness about the specific experiences of more granular, less heterogeneous LGBTQ communities. I'm not saying this is deliberate, but it's the reading I think is most likely, particularly since OP is baby (bio says early twenties).

I don't agree, for what it's worth, and you may kiss my own sweet queer ass about it too, kid. I find that increasing solidarity and attuning yourself to potential allying groups makes your activism stronger, not weaker, not least because numbers are helpful. Their historical analysis is also pretty weak: the move from "gay rights" to broader queer rights is a function of a pendulum switch from a fairly assimilationist (and very effective!) period of advocacy into a more liberationist period, which is a pattern that is pretty consistent for queer advocacy movements (and others!) over the past century.

That said, anger at perceived abandonment of our trans allies in favor of focusing on marriage as a lynchpin queer justice movement was simmering the entire time--we were talking about this in ten or fifteen years ago over ENDA, kid--and the emphasis on broader freedoms surrounding gender rather than specifically gayness and liberation has been driven in part by a) noting how aggressive that conservatives have become about gender conformity and attacking trans people as it became harder to secure public support for attacks on marriage; ergo trans people are central targets requiring defense and b) by trying to pay back the gains that came from successes over marriage to everyone else because the marriage war required telling a lot of other important community issues to be quiet and take up less space. It's only fair to give them more room after Obergefell came down.

Bluntly, kid, I see where you're coming from about people thinking gay people won everything already and don't need to be worrying, and I agree anyone saying that is full of shit. I directly benefited in countless ways from the victories surrounding marriage in the past decade, and I can and will jump down the throat of anyone who implies that those victories weren't hard-won, effective, and important. But I think you're missing a lot of stuff you don't have context for yet, and I definitely think you have no business complaining that "queer" is a slur while using "gay"--which was, after all, the slur of choice when I was an adolescent; "queer" was the polite term that only showed up within-community.

A lot of hay has been made about the term omnicause but I think it is quite useful in that in a lot of progressive, leftist, communist, socialist, whateverist spaces, ultimately weigh all progressive causes by the threat that they pose to capitalism or how well they can help install communism/socialism/anarchism/whateverism. That's why a lot of progressive spaces have moved away from gay rights towards amorphic queer whatever. They've moved away from gay rights such as gay marriage, anti-hate crime, anti-discrimination stuff because that doesn't advance the cause of communism/socialism/anarchism/whateverism. They've moved towards queer theory which they view as destructive towards the status quo in favor of installing whatever their preferred whateverism is. It's also helped by the perception that especially lesbians, gay men and transgender people are seen as, on some level, bourgeois and frivolous because of a very very very long very old tradition of associating sex between people of the same gender and cross-dressing as upper class, again frivolous. When you care about lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people not being discriminated as a goal in and of itself that is seen as suspicious because that doesn't really advance whateverism. You can see this with a lot of climate activism too. It's not really on some level about stopping climate change, it's about installing whateverism. That's why a lot of climate activists are so opposed to technological solutions for climate change. Because that would be cheating because it's not installing whateverism which is ultimately what it's about. I'm not saying that climate activists don't have genuine existential fear of climate change but that on some level or another it is about whateverism ultimately. I did focus on LGBT people because that is something I feel qualified to talk about but I think a lot of this also applies in some way or another to racial Justice, feminism, and the fight against antisemitism All of which I am not qualified to talk about.