#<- i also acknowledge how privileged i am to even be able to say that

[inspectorseb]

Guess who’s miraculously the only person in my house that don’t have Covid 💪🏻

Both my parents are miserable right now and we knows they got it from my grandfather who we saw Sunday but didn’t find out he had it until Monday. I don’t have it now but if I get it I’m gonna be fucking pissed cause I have never had Covid in the over 4 years it’s been around. And I’m the only person I know who still always wears a mask whenever I’m out in public

So I have now quarantined myself to the living room where I’m sleeping on an air mattress. I mean it ain’t that bad tho cause I’m right next to the kitchen and it means I have the big ass tv and my ps5 lol. You might be thinking why not just stay in your own room? Because of the shitty timing we’re supposed to be completely redoing my room rn which means all my shit is everywhere, I have no floor, I can’t sleep in my own bed 💀

Also there is a long ass rant about stuff in the rags that you don’t have to read. Really you didn’t even have to read anything anyways lol.

[sebscore]

Please write something with drivers praising female f1 driver during March because it’s womens history month. Anytime something bad happens to her on the grid she’s like someone hitting her car “how could they during womens history month 😞😧”

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

pairings: daniel ricciardo x driver!reader / lewis hamilton x driver!reader / sebastian vettel x driver!reader / small lando cameo

warnings: none?

author’s note: I know it’s not the entire month, but I saw lewis’ post for Stephanie and I couldn’t shake the thought of him making a special post for our gen z driver 🥺 I hope you like it, my darling!

masterlist

• • • • • • •

“Have you seen Daniel’s new post on Insta?” Her performance coach asked her, scrolling through his own phone while they took a break.

Y/N shook her head, not having been on the social media app that day. “No, why?”

“He talks about you.” He grinned, handing his phone over to her with the post ready on the screen.

Daniel had updated his Instagram with a clip of an interview he had done, where he’s asked about which women in his life inspire him.

He starts off by speaking about his grandmothers and their move from Italy to Australia. Daniel also mentions his mother and the support she has given him.

“From an athletic point of view, there’s 2 people that come to mind. My, uh, former colleague and friend, Y/N Y/L,” he laughed, “her entire story on how she came into Formula 1 is very inspiring and she has brought a lot of positive change into the sport,”

“But she’s also a great person and she always has something incredible to say,” Daniel teased his younger friend, “so, yeah, Y/N is definitely an inspiration to me.”

The woman had a soft smile on her face throughout watching the entire video, touched by Daniel’s words.

She gave her coach’s phone back and grabbed her own from her bag, deciding to leave a comment under Daniel’s post.

YourUsername I didn’t even have to force you to say this 😭 thank you, Dan! 💙

A mere hours later, she had seen multiple notifications of people tagging her in a post Lewis had made. She opened the app again and saw an entire post dedicated to her made by the World Champion himself.

lewishamilton Beside Stephanie, I also want to highlight the journey of @/yourusername. I’ve been privileged to watch her make history as the first female driver to stand on a F1 podium, to grab pole position and to win a Grand Prix. Y/N, thank you for all the work you do and continue to do. You use your platform well and I can’t thank you enough for standing by me in the causes that I feel passionate about. I’m excited to continue to follow your journey. Happy #InternationalWomensDay to you, thank you Y/N.

Y/N felt emotional reading Lewis’s message. She had idolized the driver ever since she was a little girl and to have him appreciate and acknowledge her hard work means the world to her.

YourUsername thank you so much, Lewis! 🖤 not you making me cry on international women’s day 😭 this should be illegal

— lewishamilton ❤️

The official F1 Instagram account had also made a post dedicated to the female driver which had been reposted by several drivers on their Instagram stories like George, Carlos, Valtteri, Esteban and even Lando.

The McLaren driver had called her “my goat 🐐” in his caption, something that had made her chuckle.

The best message she had gotten for the special day, came from none other than Sebastian Vettel.

It was a shock to her when the German send her a text message as she hadn’t heard from him in a while, she figured he wanted the time for himself and his loved ones.

SEB VETTEL

Happy International Women’s Day, Y/N! Congratulations on P2 in Bahrain, a great start to the season. I hope you’re doing well and that you had a good winter break!

Today I was reminded of the amazing journey you’ve had since your karting days. I am honored that I have been able to watch you grow as a woman from so close. I’m very proud of you and I’ll keep supporting you, even if I’m not there as much anymore.

I hope you have a great day and I wish you the very best!

Big kiss! X

She send him a message back, thanking him for his beautiful words and asking him how he’s been doing. They send a few texts back and forth, updating each other on their lives.

Y/N also decided to pay a tribute on social media, posting several pictures of herself with the caption:

YourUsername happy international women’s day to myself, cause I’m the best woman I know ❤️‍🔥

[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.

[whiterosebrian]

Confession on Israel-Palestine

Ladies and gentlemen and nonbinary folks, if you want to know how my current break from social media has been going, I’m afraid that I can’t say much.  I don’t feel like I’ve made much progress in self-rehabilitation.  It doesn’t help that I haven’t been able to meet with the clinical social worker for counseling often enough due to delays in the first two meetings.  It doesn’t help that the warehouse job still wears me out terribly.  It doesn’t help that the weather here in Indiana hasn’t been quite right yet for outdoor meditation. 

I’ve pondered when I might resume making and posting original work to my social media pages.  I haven’t decided yet.  That choice may depend on what the next month or so are like for me. 

The main reason why I wrote this journal entry is to make a confession.  Several factors led me to go off on my current hiatus from social media, which I intend to discuss in depth at a later day.  However, what especially provoked me to quit posting and declare my absence was the latest flare-up in violence in Israel-Palestine and the back-and-forth polemics on social media.  I felt unable to meaningfully address it. 

I acknowledge the ethno-nationalist administrations in Israel that have grown more radically right-wing over the years.  I cannot dismiss the reports of long-standing human rights abuses in Israel.  I cannot dismiss the suffering and death involved in the establishment of the modern state of Israel.  I dare not dismiss Palestinians who suffer and die whenever the violence flares up in that little strip of land!  I further acknowledge that most people who join demonstrations against Israel have only the best of intentions. 

Why haven’t I spoken out more often on Palestine, though?  There are still too many cases where condemnation of Israel is a thin veil for condemnation of the Jewish people as a whole.  Is Judaism not an ancient ethno-religion that has long-standing ties to Eres Yisra’el, the Land of Israel, however widely dispersed it may have been?  As a white European living on Turtle Island, am I not much, much more of an alien than a Jewish person living near Jerusalem?  Even considering ethnocentrism within the Zionist movement, is that still not a serious response to the long, tragic history of marginalization, persecution, expulsion, and eventual genocide?  Doesn’t anti-Jewish hatred persist today?  Doesn’t anti-Jewish propaganda come in the form of dog-whistles?  Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I’ve seen Catholic fundamentalists claim to reject “racial antisemitism”—in a conveniently narrow sense—while espousing their usual anti-Jewish narratives.

Those sorts of dog-whistles have made me wary of much (not all, but much) of the rhetoric that I’ve seen.  I don’t want to shut down or belittle Jewish people who express pain and fear.  I do acknowledge the increasingly sharp divides—especially generational divides—within the Jewish community over Israel.  I was also surprised to read about the historical real-world alternatives to political Zionism, most notably the Bundist movement, whose main principle was about establishing Jewish cultural enclaves throughout the Diaspora while agitating for socialist justice. 

What of the Jewish people who still express fear of antisemitism and still express attachment to the land of Israel?  I’m not supposed to dismiss their voices and stories as settler-colonial propaganda that needs to be censored, am I?  I’m not supposed to regard them all as hyper-privileged, lying, greedy, bloodthirsty, all-controlling aliens, am I?  I’m not supposed to ridicule them as passive-aggressive crybaby Nazis worthy only of isolation, am I?  I’m not supposed to declare them all guilty of genocide and needing to be punished accordingly for the rest of their lives, am I?  I’m not supposed to judge them all as Bad Jews and leave only a tiny remnant of Good Jews, am I? 

Over the course of the reactions, rants, and reflections that I’ve written into my private spiral-bound journal, I noted a fixation on Jewish safety and Jewish freedom.  Why?  Euro-American guilt?  Ex-Catholic guilt?  Have Israel-supporting organization exaggerated the prevalence of anti-Jewish hatred?  I’ve read of dissension within such organizations as the Anti-Defamation League and J Street.  Surely, though, claiming that the entire world celebrates and pampers the Jewish people would be completely ridiculous. 

You might recall the incidents of anti-Jewish intimidation and violence that sometimes appear in news outlets.  Aren’t there people with big voices like Nick Fuentes who would gladly do gods-know-what to the Jewish people if they somehow took power?  Hasn’t anti-Jewish propaganda spread beyond Europe as well?  Aren’t there Islamic fundamentalists who call for the destruction of Jewish people, branding them as conspiring overlords or as apes and pigs?  I hear about Jews and Muslims living in harmony in the Middle East in the olden days, but that narrative does strike me as sounding too good to be true—haven’t Jews faced discrimination and violence there too?  I’m willing to be educated on the nuances within said narrative. 

I trust that you understand that I reject the notion of collectively punishing Muslims, Arabs, or Palestinians.  I wish for no group of people to be collectively punished, especially a group that has notoriously suffered domination and alienation and worse over centuries.  Has something gone wrong my desire to stand with Jewish people?  Is that why I’ve neglected to publicly speak for Palestinians?  Once again, I dare not deny that Palestinians face suffering and death under the watch of a powerful Israeli state backed by other powerful states. 

I’ve gotten the sense that I’m being pressured to choose which people to support—but I would be very happy to be proven wrong.   I am not yet totally confident that the free-free-Palestine movement lacks undercurrents of demonizing and punishing Jewish people—but, again, I would be very happy to be proven wrong.  The point that I’ve been gesturing towards this whole time is this: I believe in harmonious and joyous co-existence of various peoples and cultures on lands that they work together on healing and enriching.  I’ll grant that phrases like “it’s complicated” can be cop-outs, but they can surely also be expressions of uncertainty over how to best resolve serious problems.

I ask you to write to and call your local elected leaders and put pressure on them to not only demand a ceasefire but also demand full civil and human rights for Palestinians.  Surely that is something that we can do.  I even wrote and mailed letters to Jewish organizations such as the ones mentioned previously, asking them to hold Israel’s leaders and elites accountable, stand up more forcefully for Palestinians, and seriously engage with Jewish anti-Zionists—not to lecture them as some sort of superior Aryan, but to encourage dialog as a fellow civil-rights activist. Did that in itself risk “mansplaining” antisemitism?  I trust that I had good intentions.  I wish for peace and freedom for all, and I wish to understand more fully how that can become a reality. 

[emersonfreepress]

You previously mentioned that we will be able to play as the child of immigrant parents. But how will you handle where the family comes from? Because let's be real: a kid whose parents come from Sweden or Germany won't get the same type of reactions as one whose family come from Mexico or Iran.

And that's even assuming the family are ethnically from those countries and not, say, people who went from one country to another to escape civil war or poverty or whatever, then came to the USA. Which is very detailed and nitpicking, I know, but I am very curious about this particular route.

Would it be right to assume MC's whose family have immigrant backgrounds would have it set, like how MC's family in non-immigrant route have certain set characteristics (upper middle class, how they came to their vices that caused current economic issues etc.)?

I haven't decided on exactly how I want to do it as far as accommodating backgrounds; as in, the choice scene isn't written or coded yet. But I really love what C.C. Hill @when-life-gives-you-lemons-if did in Insert Rich Family Name when it comes to customizing the family's background and plan to do something similar. (I highly recommend that game btw; and anything else CC writes tbh) Opening up a country of origin choice for immigrant MCs, however, means that I'm definitely reversing my decision to exclude skin tone customization. The game doesn't delve into things like colorism and or specific ethnic perspectives because I'm one person and just can't write all that 😅 but continent and country of origin will be a separate choice from things like appearance customization.

There are set characteristics of the second-gen MC's past but they don't differ wildly from the local background. Since the parents are characters with set personalities that I actually feature in scenes and dialogue, though, the immigrant backstory still needs to follow roughly the same beats as the local one. Your parents still lucked into money and spent it quickly and unwisely.

I know what you mean by the reactions that different migrant groups garner from people in real life, especially as the kid of African immigrants, but the setting I'm writing isn't like that. That's super unrealistic for a town like Emerson in real life — but it's a fiction and the story I'm telling isn't about facing or overcoming discrimination. If I was writing a version of Emerson that had a historical past actually typical of the United States, so many things, so many, would not exist as they are and I'd be writing a completely different story. The story I have written is just like... inappropriate honestly, for a setting like a realistic Emerson. I would not care to write about some high school kids at the prep school, I would much rather explore the politics and criminal underbelly of the adult world -- if I was writing this realistically.

To some degree, there are darker, more realistic aspects of Emerson as a setting (like blacklisting and what discrimination in Emerson even looks like) but that won't be explored until Book 2 because the MC will be an adult finally navigating life with the other adults. But this Book and this story are about the very insular perspective of a privileged kid from a weird fictional town. You could almost call a teenage MC an unreliable narrator, regardless of background, because they have lucked out in not experiencing much personal hardship. It doesn't mean my world doesn't acknowledge or have these things; literal case and points being Gabe and Kile. The MC is ignorant to a lot of what they haven't experienced and is written that way — and the characters who have had vastly different and harsher experiences also have their own limitations in perspective.

What you're describing just isn't what I'm exploring and xenophobia is not the sort of thing I'd want to inject half-assed for realism's sake or drop as some form of flavor text. I used to have a variable that let players choose if their last name gets frequently mispronounced because to me it's a funny thing that I relate to my immigrant experience. But I scrapped It because at the end of the day, it's just coding a micro-aggression that does literally nothing for the story or character development. Realistic discrimination doesn't enhance the story because I didn't create a story based in a realistic world. ...I think that sentence might sum it up, yeah.

I get that people don't have access to my notes or unpublished work and I don't presume that you know my background! But I'm confident I know what I'm doing with the option — and if it sucks, y'all better tell me (!!) and I'll have the whole rest of development to improve it.

[praisedbesophia]

im lightskin quarter latine whose greatgrandparents deliberately did not teach their son mexican culture or even to speak spanish hoping he would have better opportunities. then he and his daughter married very white europeans. i look white, culturally im white, but theres something missing in me, i feel lost and theres freedom and an overwhelming sense of place in the deserts of the southwest(my home already), the flow of the spanish tongue(estoy aprendiendo), the flavors of the cuisine, everything.

i feel a strong (though currently broken) connection to my ancestry and pull towards mexican culture, but im very concerned about appropriating or claiming something never meant for me. i knew i wasnt ready for any of the spirituality, but reading your blog made me realize it may never be available to me.

do you have any advice for a young person trying to reconnect with their ancestors' culture?

im still not even sure i can claim to be latine, or if even that much is inappropriate

Hi anon! I'm excited to hear that you're interested in reconnecting to Mexican and Latine culture. One thing I would recommend (and it seems you're already doing this considering you sent me an ask) is to reach out to and interact with people who were raised in the culture. Here on Tumblr it would mean not only following Mexicans and other Latines, but also reblogging our posts. And not just the "fun" ones. We absolutely do notice how whiteblr is quick to reblog pictures of Santa Muerte but ignore posts that discuss things like the absolute racism and vileness of "Mexican coquette", or the neocolonialism of Mexico and other Latin American countries

For example, I have mentioned in the past that non-Latine westerners have moved into Indigenous and rural Mexican communities and have either driven out the locals (many of whom whose families have lived in those same communities for literal centuries) or else have unofficially introduced segregation with the locals getting the short end of the stick. I am not exaggerating when I say that there are banks, restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, schools etc. in Mexico that will not serve Mexicans. These exist solely for (non-Latine white) western neocolonizers. Sadly but unsurprisingly, my posts and similar posts by other Mexicans have been all but ignored by whiteblr

Which brings me to another point. It is important that you acknowledge your whiteness and privileges it gives you. Understand that you will most likely be perceived as gringo by most Mexicans. In fact most Latines will likely perceive you as gringo. This isn't meant to discourage you; it is simply a fact. Even my dad and I who aren't remotely white passing by US standards have been perceived as gringos — which in Mexican culture typically refers to a non-Latine white USAmerican — by other Mexicans because we are light skinned USAmerican native English speakers

There are people who will tell you that you will never be able to claim Mexican culture. Ignore them. I have found that most of those people aren't even Mexican in the first place. Many aren't even Latines. And the ones that are often turn out to be xenophobic and white supremacist. Yes, the legal definition may say one thing, but the legal definition isn't the cultural definition. I have cousins who do not fit the legal definition of Mexican whatsover, yet they are still Mexican. They walk through this world as Mexicans. The only people to have ever told them that they're not Mexicans? I'm sure you can guess

Claiming Latine may be a little more complicated. There are many who believe that the term Latine should only apply to people raised in Latin America or who have a parent raised in Latin America. The Mexican definition of Latine is more relaxed, but even we would give dirty looks to someone with absolutely no connection to Mexico or Latin America whatsoever (beyond some distant unknown ancestor) claiming Latine

This is not out of xenophobia. Rather this is a response to racist and xenophobic attempts by non-Latine white westerners to redefine and claim Latine and Latin American for themselves within recent years after centuries of dehumanizing us and deeming our cultures inferior

Learning Spanish is of course a good idea. Becoming fluent isn't necessary — I'm not, and it was my first language as a small child — but you should learn enough to at least communicate in full sentences. Plus learning Spanish will allow you greater interaction with Latamblr. Many Latines on here write their posts mostly if not entirely in Spanish or Portuguese. Some do it because they don't know how to read or write in English. Others for other reasons

Do you know where your great grandparents were from? Mexican culture is rich and varied. Each state is its own traditions, cuisine, dress, dialects, music, etc. White rice (often cooked with butter) is a common part of the diet in Jalisco where my mother is from. Yet my paternal grandparents from Chihuahua had literally never even eaten white rice until one of their daughters married a Chinese man. And let's not forget Californio, Tejano, Nuevomexicano, Sonoran Chicano cultures. These cultures are often dismissed and degraded (even by other Mexicans) but they too are rich

I am also grateful for you admitting that you are not ready to engage with Mexican spirituality and may likely never be able to. However, should you choose to look into Mexican spirituality in the future, please keep this in mind: Mexican spirituality is heavily Catholic. Mexico is the second most Catholic country in Latin America (Brazil takes first place). More specifically, Mexican spirituality centers heavily around La Virgen de Guadalupe. In fact one of our most famous hymns is called La Guadalupana, and in that hymn is a verse that claims devotion to La Virgen de Guadalupe as essential to being Mexican

Many of us find it offensive and insulting when people attempt to separate Catholicism and devotion to Guadalupe from Mexican Spirituality. Even some Indigenous Mexicans have expressed finding this offensive and insulting because while it's true that most Indigenous Mexican religions and spiritual traditions predate the Catholic Church in Mexico, even many of those have been influenced and permanently altered by Catholicism

[mylucayathoughts]

I've been seeing a lot of people post this statement from Nick's article about feeling guilty taking gay roles but to be honest I don't get that statement. Why would you feel guilty? You got a job because you had the skills and talents , just like any other job. No one apologizes for getting a job! I got my job because of my hard work and skills, I'm not gonna apologize for taking it from someone else. Should queer actors apologize for taking straight roles? Should Jonathan Bailey or Matt Bommer apologize for playing Anthony Bridgerton or Neil Caffrey. I would hope not! They're brilliant in those roles.Should we recruit psychopaths or criminals to play those roles convincingly? So why here? Why shoehorn queer actors by saying they could have had the queer role instead. This is going against the essence of an actor whose job it is to portray someone else convincingly..and Nick is not the first actor who said this. I've rolled my eyes before, I'll roll my eyes unfortunately now again. I just wish I hadn't it from someone I admire ( I still do and think he's immensely talented but statements like this make me sad)

Dear nonny,

If you are here to really know my opinion on this, as to why he said he felt guilt, welcome 🙏 I appreciate this! If you are here expecting me to just agree though, I unfortunately can't. So read if you are okay with a different pov.

Also, if you have read the one sentence that says he felt guilt and you did not read the interview then I would encourage you to read it. Or at least read the interview question and Nicks full answer to the question.

From your ask, it seems that you agree queer actors should be able to take up straight roles and straight actors should be able to take up queer roles, without judgment, without reservation. They should get these roles simply because they are good for those particular roles, because they can properly portray them.

I agree with that part. But I'm sure you have seen (or you haven't which is fine) that not everyone agrees with that idea. Some actors have been criticized for taking queer roles when they identify as straight. Darren Criss publicly announced how he won't be taking up queer roles anymore, and he explained why here. I understood it as that he wanted more queer representation in Hollywood and that he thought when queer people play queer roles they can use real life experiences to embody them. Here is an article where renowned actors, media personalities and human rights spokesperson talk about the importance of queer people taking up queer roles in Hollywood. There is a real discussion about these things, from experts across Hollywood and media. So this is completely normal, for an actor who identifies as straight to feel some sort of guilt taking up queer roles.

I am posting a screenshot of the part from Nicks GQ interview you are referring to.

Nick even mentions that it's not all guilt, it's like a sense of uncertainty because of the discussion that exists and his own belief system which he explains as "queer characters aren't solely their sexuality" which I absolutely love.

To me, this is Nicholas simply being aware of what is happening in the industry, what discussions are being had, what kind of work his fellow queer actors are getting, what audiences sometimes expect. This is Nick understanding and acknowledging his privilege as a straight white man. This is Nick being sensible about the topic in question.

I'm aware that these things can be very subjective and please know that however you might feel about it currently, they are not wrong or terrible or absolutely correct. But It is always rewarding, if you dig a little deeper about a topic or a comment that bothers you. And you will possibly find information that may change the way you feel. I really do hope you feel better 🙏

[hard--headed--woman]

I'm Indian and I used to be a radfem, like actively in wombyn's meets and donating to women only shelters for a few years. What changed my mind was that I found, for a radical position, many radfems were racist by omitting any conversation about it. I don't think all radfems are racist but there is an issue of them wanting to focus on "womanhood" as the bigger picture and completely ignoring the racism other women face because they think it's a separate issue. I understand misogyny affects every woman but it's wrong for so many of them to silence conversations about racism as if woc don't face both often at the same time in its own way. And overall it still holds true that woc face more ill effects from society, a lot of white radfems just don't want to accept that they could have any perceived power over anyone. It doesn't mean they're the same as men but they do not notice how the racist misogynist systems against woc are still perpetuated because they refuse to speak out on it or acknowledge the benefits they get from it.

I agree with absolutely everything you've said. Many radfems are deeply racist, hold racist views or are racist, as you said, by refusing to talk about racism because they want to focus on women - which doesn't make sense because not only women of color exist and face racism, but you can acknowledge that all men are oppressors in a patriarchy while also understanding that men of color are oppressed because of racism and fighting against that. Women of color's freedom will exist when they are free from both sexism and racism, and for that we need to fighting sexism but also racism as a whole.

I think this comes from several reasons ;

- many white radfems just don't care about women of color and racism, and many of them literally hate them. it's a terrible thing to say but i have noticed so many racist bullshit. many of this can also be pure ignorance, as i have noticed that many people do not even try to understand racism issues and to learn about poc's experiences.

- radical feminists are often uncomfortable with the idea that they have a privilege and are part of an oppressor class. i have noticed this with opposite sex attracted radfems and white radfems. i remember when i think it was menalez (not sure) made a post about how she hated white women and many white radfems got angry, while they are the firsts to say that women have the right to hate men because men are our oppressors - and well, white people, including white women, also are the oppressors, aren't we ? so it should work that way too. it is not a radical feminism issue, just a white issue in general - the problem isn’t radical feminism but white people not being able to handle the fact that they're (we're) privileged.

- radical feminists are tired of libfems, TRAs and other people in general asking feminists to include everyone in their feminism because it's about EqUalItY and tHe PaTrIaRcHy HuRtS mEn ToO and what not, which i totally understand because i am tired of this shit too, but they react the wrong way. they understand that feminism is for females only but forget that different groups of women face different struggles, ex women of color face racism, and that we have to focus on these struggles and to fight different kind of oppressions if we want all females to be free - which means that feminism has to fight against different forms of misogyny (misogynoir, lesbophobia, etc) and to overlaps with other forms of activism, like anti racism activism, that will include men. it doesn't mean that our feminism include men. nuance.

I am a white woman so I might not be the best person to talk about this but I feel like you can acknowledge all of this while still being a radfem - tho I respect and understand women of color who leave radical feminism because of racism, of course. At the end of the day, the problem is (some) white radfems and their racism, not radical feminism in itself. You can still believe in the theory and doing activism while calling out racism in the community, or even focusing on women of color. You can still donate, talk about feminism, etc. Radical feminism actually needs more women talking about this to improve. I'm really not trying to lecture you, I hope that's not how it sounds! Just giving my opinion because I think it's an interesting topic.

Anyway, I just agree with everything you said and I understand why you did what you did.

[raraeavesmoriendi]

there is. Something. about the fact that trans people who are most often treated by the cisgender patriarchal state as Failed Cis Women are getting some serious ‘friendly’ fire in the conversations about peoples’ anxieties re: the state of modern feminism and how those issues have been treated as somehow sidelined

sure, they’re still capable of misogyny. but so is Everyone. it came Free with being raised in a Patriarchal Society. there is no gender, cis or trans, that is somehow immune to being misogynistic.

like, the fact that some trans voices are finally being spotlighted in the feminist movement is much needed and long overdue.

but spinning around to point at people who aren’t women, women-adjacent, or even aligned with any gender, and accuse them of being The Misogynist All Along like some sort of scooby doo villain feels like it’s still vastly missing the point.

like. the people who have the most access to patriarchal privilege are the same white supremacist perisex guys who are passing the laws to try to erase all of us from existence, and the same white supremacist perisex rich guys who have been funneling them money. it’s the cis perisex abled (usually) straight white guys who still get preferential treatment at our workplacss and are still making more money than all of us. it’s the guys who have a whole church congregation behind them. it’s the perisex cis (usually) straight men who are moving to fight feminism bc they think they’re losing something they’re entitled to, the ones who think that male privilege is their birthright. it’s the fucking judicial system. it’s the electoral college we’re staring down the barrel of in november, and the powers that be that want to keep it there.

it is not the guy who also gets misgendered when we both have to show up for our fucking planned parenthood appointments, or the rest of us who always get talked over when we say “please for the love of fuck can we call it reproductive rights instead of tying it to bioessentialist bullshit, there’s more people than just cis women that have issues getting proper care, trans women included” and then got told by well-meaning gen x feminists that “we have to call it women’s rights for now if we want to save roe, we can educate people later”

…and here we fucking are anyway, by the way, which is absolutely part of the reason that the general public needs their concept of feminism refreshed.

but. call me insane (and I am Mad so sure). I don’t think it should be somehow an offense to consider there are multiple types of transphobia to think about as we update this conversation, and the fact that a binarist perisex system will swing itself in different ways to best hit different targets. these discussions are all owed their due. I think there are more complex things at work here than, as typical, gets kicked around in snappy internet posts.

there’s this weird conception right now that people who figured out they aren’t actually women anymore (or never were, define thyself as thou wilt) are somehow amnesiac to misogyny, that suddenly there’s some huge gap there, when like. I don’t know any of us who ever actually escape it.

I still see post-op trans men - with full beards! - who get called poor mutilated, deluded women, and the violence towards them is gendered as such.

I have many, many non-binary or bigender or genderfluid colleagues and friends who, because they cannot afford to medically transition yet (or don’t want to, as is their right) have their social transition outright ignored. and then have the trauma that comes from having your actual self denied in every facet of your life treated as like, ‘woman lite’ or, more heartbreakingly, ‘easy mode.’

like it’s easy, being told from all sides “no you aren’t” when I have my proper pronouns posted every fucking where I can think of, personally and professionally, and there’s a 25% chance they ever get properly used and I ever get acknowledged as myself, because I still have my tits. that if I try to stand up for myself as often as I honestly should and deserve, I will be treated as a difficult and delusional woman. when people (usually cis men) threaten me with violence, it’s misogynistic violence. I am repeatedly misgendered as a woman when I try to see a doctor about anything to do with my uterine system that I did not choose and am actively trying to get rid of, because as long as I have it, people will overlook the part of me that is true for the part of me convenient to their system.

I am a scholar in my genre who specializes in researching the lenses of feminist and queer theory both. they have saved my life on multiple occasions when I did not have hope for my present. I have been aware of my place in the feminist struggle before I knew I was anything other than a woman. part of my gender struggle was a feeling of loss at realizing that maybe, actually, I wasn’t one, no matter how happy I am now in living authentically.

some of the most misogynistic people I have ever had the misfortune to meet are, in fact, cis women. me and the rest of the “theyfabs” are not the ones who are out here talking about “girl dinner” “girl math” “girl roman empire” “why did feminists fight for women to work I don’t want a job.” me and leaf and newt are not the people causing trad wives and stay at home girlfriends to do numbers on video apps. that is cis women. the majority of white cis women, demographically, tend to vote and pass legislature in anti-feminist ways, which is no surprise given the white supremacy involved there. but like. the call is still coming from inside the house, yet I don’t see them being reviled as perpetrators in these posts about feminism needing a revamp in the public eye. only deluded victims of the patriarchy who don’t know what’s good for them. which is also… not great, for misogynistic reasons.

like. I don’t know, this is long and not very articulate, but every so often I see a post circulate that I in theory should be very encouraged and relieved to see, as it affirms something I’ve always known —

only to wonder if I am suddenly going to be specifically charged with one of the main oppressions I have been struggling against my entire life and likely will be until I die, no matter how I try to assert my own autonomy over my life

or if I’m going to be talked over and have my autonomy rejected and ignored again, because I happen to have “what makes us girls.”

“well sock—” like. I apologize, but I don’t understand how I’m supposed to be in on the joke.

[ramorazinn]

I am an Ignorant White Person™ and also an Ignorant American™. (That's not pride in ignorance you're reading, that's acknowledgment of privilege and the inability to fully understand no matter how much I know theoretically, OK?) And my dash is curated such that 99% of what I'm seeing re: Palestine is in line with what the tiniest bit of critical thought would produce, including, but not limited to:

Genocide is bad (and this is genocide)

War crimes are bad (and Israel is committing war crimes with the tacit or outright support of most of the rest of the world, especially the US)

"Israel" is not the same as "Jews" or "Jewish people," whether they be inside or outside Israel (so suck on your antisemitism)

"Hamas" is not the same as "Palestinians" or "Muslims" (so suck on your racism and Islamophobia)

Terrorism is bad (but does not happen in a vacuum)

And I don't want to hijack any of these posts, because this is so very Not About Me, and I know I am treading dangerously close to the Tone Argument regardless. But I do want to scream out into the void because I see so much stuff that is just... tailor-made to shut down USAmerican sympathy/engagement and I don't understand,

because I really genuinely thought the rest of the world had some concept of American culture – not because I subscribe to Americentrism, but just out of self-preservation, because the USA is the big bully around here (or at least the one that's out and proud about it).

Stated-or-implied, there's a strong sentiment of "every individual USAmerican is culpable," including such flavors as:

You voted for these people

There was not a Non-War-Criminal option on our presidential ballot (and there hasn't been in the average Tumblr user's lifetime)

Even if there were, majority vote does not determine the president

Politicians are not afraid of losing their next election over this (most positions are effectively predetermined by demographics)

You aren't protesting loud enough

Only three years ago, "I can't breathe" (George Floyd edition) was international news and prompted global protests and still wasn't loud enough to do anything in our own country

The USA is vast and cannot be disrupted by protest in the same way as smaller countries

The media is owned by the same corporations that own the government and will not be covering protests in an unbiased way if at all

Our police and in-country military are encouraged to do things to our citizens that would violate the Geneva Convention if performed on enemy combatants (we have to walk into any protest willing and able to sacrifice our bodies/lives and by extension our families' safety and security)

You need to educate yourself

This is true, but also

USAmerican media is propaganda

The average USAmerican does not have even a passing relationship with someone who can speak to the issue personally

The average USAmerican is starting at ZERO in this educational journey (Terrorism bad! Palestinians whom? Gaza Strip where? Colonialism what?)

I get what you're saying, Blogpost Written In Justified Anger, but you are speaking to a group that already has trouble distinguishing between criticism of a part and criticism of a whole, so when you skip right over "your country is culpable" and start at "you, as an individual, are culpable," you lose half the people who might have been willing to listen. And I am afraid that the pervasiveness of this sentiment is actively pushing USAmericans to support the actions of Israel.

[ecargmura]

Paradox Live The Animation Episode 10 Review - What Extra Battle?

I am confused. I get that this is a BAE-focused, or rather an Allen-focused episode, but the way it was handled was so…weird? Like, I’m an anime-only watcher but I’m seriously wondering what just happened with this episode. I get why it’s titled ‘Lost’ because I am as lost as the plot is.

I’ll talk about the part I do understand, like the Allen portion with his father. His father is so toxic. I guess all that toxicity aged him so fast because look at him before Allen’s birth and him after. How did he age so fast when he’s Asian? I hate it when parents try to take control of their child’s life just because they were involved in the creation of the child. Mr. Sugasano, hip-hop is credible music! If Allen ran away, then he should just let him be! Why did he have to come back into his life now of all times? Does he know something about phantometals that he doesn’t? I get that Allen was trying to be rebellious and wanting to win Paradox Live just to have his father’s acknowledgement, but Allen learns that getting his approval was a futile attempt. Allen’s story with his parents was an emotional one, I admit.

The part with him telling Anne and Hajun that he cannot produce illusions was a bit confusing. Was he going through a trap reaction? I don’t get this part. I get that Allen is very susceptible to trap reactions as he did have bad reactions to them early on, but he’s usually seen as confident and a bit cocky, so why is he deteriorating now of all times? I get that it’s because of his father’s words about how his music is one that kills others is affecting him, but is it a trap reaction? Is he going to get metal corrosion? What is going on? The Allen I’ve seen throughout this show was a strong-willed guy who’s willing to help out people in times of need. I thought the one with the biggest issues in the group was Hajun, so why do we need to focus on Allen all of a sudden? Is it main character privilege or something? The way Allen’s all mopey makes him look a bit pathetic, even after all the confidence he oozed out in past episodes. Heck, it’s not even like him to back out of a fight. It just gives cozmez so much disrespect. Like, why hype up the extra battle when the other team forfeits by default? What was the point of the extra battle, then?

And the part with the ramen guy and the scientist guy was confusing too. I thought Shura and ramen guy were the same person? They have the same voice actor. Is Suwabe doing double roles? Since Buraikan showed up, it made me wonder where the other guy has been all this time. Is he an illusion? Does that mean he’s dead? WAIT! The metals are called Phantometals… DOES THAT MEAN YASHA IS A PHANTOM? DOES THAT MEAN NAYUTA IS ALSO A PHANTOM? If Ramen Guy and Shura are standing in two different places despite being the same person, does that mean the Shura on stage is a phantom produced by Ramen Guy? Since the Akira Ishida scientist guy placed that gold phantometal into that contraption, is that how Yasha is able to appear? Where is the real Yasha? My head hurts thinking about all of this.

Because BAE took up most of the time that the other groups had to squeeze in screen time. TCW gets some. Akan Yatsura was the opening act for the extra battle, but was that even needed? Cozmez, though… Nayuta’s words to Kanata about how Kanata needs to cherish himself more and how he needs to rely on him less feels very ominous. Nayuta is seriously one of the biggest mysteries of this show alongside Yasha. Just what are you, Nayuta?

All I can say is that I didn’t like this episode. It feels like it’s disrespecting cozmez for winning by default and BAE for having another depression episode that seems unwarranted. I feel like BAE got way too much screen time and cozmez, the other side of the extra battle didn’t get jack. There’s only like two or three more episodes left which means Anne is definitely NOT getting a focus episode and that’s a disservice to them. The next episode has bright yellow borders, so…that means Buraikan is getting focus since Akan Yatsura’s color is a dark yellow. I don’t know what’s going on. I’m super lost. What did you get from this episode? 

[ara-line]

So, queer POC.

A lot of left wing people are uncomfortable acknowledging many queer POC face marginalization from their own communities.

This is especially true if you're from an immigrant family.

"But Bee," you say, "your grandmother and mom are very open minded towards the gays and they grew up in uber homophobic India. They managed to unlearn their homophobia. You have coworkers who've been in Canada for less than a year and they include their pronouns on their LinkedIn profiles. The Chennai Rainbow Parade is a thing. There are Indian universities with LGBT support clubs. So just because they grew up in a homophobic environment doesn't mean they'll be that way for the rest of their lives."

Yes, that is true, especially among urban university educated Gen Z Indians. But there are still many who for whatever reason, don't unlearn those views.

And their potentially queer children, who already struggle to see eye to eye with their parents because of how wildly different the environments in which the generations grew up in are, struggle even more because of it.

Many white North American middle and upper class LGBT people, who are able to come out and are privileged compared to many of their fellow gays because of this, are left wing and are quite uncomfortable acknowledging this reality out of fear of being racist. We can recognize this reality and also not be racist or xenophobic. What matters is doing so with respect and nuance.

As a result, many queer POC are not able to get support from their own POC communities and from their fellow LGBT people, leading to a whole new level of alienation. Jasvir Singh is one openly gay Sikh man, and he has discussed how many LGBT Sikhs are excluded from their communities when they come out.

See: Bruce MacArthur was able to kill gay male POC, primarily men from South Asia and the Middle East, because his victims concealed their homosexuality from their families because they knew their families were homophobic. TW for murder, torture, and dismemberment.

I am aware there's many other factors at play with respect to Bruce MacArthur, but given some of my own experiences growing up as a first generation Canadian from India, I do think this particular fact of life I'm talking about did play somewhat of a role in why MacArthur evaded justice for so long.

So I do want to acknowledge queer POC who aren't able to come out due to homophobia within their fellow POC communities and because many usually white North American middle and upper class LGBT people, aka the ones who are safest coming out because they're able to get support easily and don't have to fear marginalization, refuse to acknowledge their privilege and support their fellow LGBT people who are less privileged and less safe in coming out.

In short, white, economically privileged LGBT people with supportive communities need to do more to support their fellow LGBT people. Especially POC ones and queer first generation immigrants.

[nameforadragon]

I keep seeing posts being like "omg. The kids don't know how to use computer! They don't know how to use a mouse! They don't know what a command line is! They can't even use a browser. The kids don't know anything about technology if not app on phone:("

And idk dude like. I'm not gonna accuse these people of lying but I am gonna accuse them of being completely biased with absolutely no self reflection at all. You sound like your parents. Like holy shit. First of all, LOTS of us [aged<20] have had computer classes. "Computer lab" was a class all throughout primary school for me, and in grade 8 I had a required course where I learned some Python, had to use Adobe Photoshop, that kind of stuff. I know so many people who go further than that (including myself) and take elective coding classes. Now, it would be incredibly fucking biased of me to conclude that, because almost everyone I know is at the very least functional with a computer and can use a mouse, this means everyone is. Of course not. But thats what these posts do. "I only interact with children who don't know this, therefore no one under 20 knows anything and they're all stupid with their little tik toks" you have a very incomplete sample of kids at this age, and you barely acknowledge it.

Secondly, more on the self reflection bit. This is absolutely a privilege issue. Not a "the kids are so dumbb omggg" issue. Kids don't have computer classes? It's a privilege I was able to get that education. Should we mock people who didn't have music classes growing up and don't know the difference between a rhythm and a beat? If your answer to that is no, then maybe we shouldn't mock kids for not knowing the difference between a search engine and a browser. I know plenty of people bring up the issue to try and get at this, but I cant shake the undertone that all of these posts have in common, which is essentially this air of superiority, like people who grew up with desktop computer access are somehow better than people who didn't, which is just kind of terrible?? Like no joke, I've seen people complaining about uni students who don't really know the ins and outs of programming yet in undergrad and its like,,, did you just not want them to go to school because they didn't know that prior to post secondary? Like, what do you think school is for? Being perfect all the time and telling the teacher that you know everything already? I was under the impression that school was for acquiring knowledge and skills that you previously didnt have.

I also know people who are much older than me, and could have been coding all of their life, but didn't so much as touch a computer until after college, and they learned how to use it, and how to code, and now it's their career! You don't need to learn how computers work when you are five! I grew up scribbling on ms paint and being confused how solitaire worked, and struggling to comprehend minesweeper strategy on a very old version of Windows. I could functionally operate a mouse at the age of one, and that's all privilege. I'm not smarter, or better or more refined or anything, I was literally just born into a family that had desktop computers. And again, to point out the bias, I know way more adults that fit the whole "don't understand it if it's not an app on my phone" than kids.

Finally, a minor nitpick but I feel like it's warranted since the people authouring these posts often present themselves as being more knowledgeable about computers than the average teen? Don't go just saying incorrect bullshit. If you mean PC, say pc. If you mean a desktop computer, or a laptop, say that. Phones are not "fake computers" they just ARE computers. They are computers that have been engineered to be tiny. Their size does not mean they are not computers, it just means they are small. Furthermore, an "app" isn't a "thing u use on a phone." It's literally just the word application shortened. Anytime you use an application that you download on a laptop, or a pc or whatever, you are using an app. Your browser application is an app. I hate to tell you, but it must be said.

Sorry if anything I said in this is straight up wrong, I am not immune to hypocrisy, yadda yadda you know the deal. I also AM NOT an expert on computers, I have (what I, a teenager consider to be) a relatively baseline understanding of computers. And I'm writing this exhausted because I can't sleep. Admittedly on the mobile app, (which explains any typos) but I swear to you that I have a laptop and I use it more than I use my phone most days. I doubt anyone will really see this post but thanks for reading if you got this far I guess. Maybe let's just not fearmonger about "the kids these days" when we should be trying to help kids become functioning adults. I didn't get past my struggles with reading as a kid by being told that I was stupid, or getting mocked. I got past them by finding a book that I loved, and by being encouraged to read by adults who genuinely cared about my education. I really don't see how computers are different, that's all I have to say.

[iamnotawomanimagod]

Ngl I've been a halsey fan since before badlands and I really never cared much about fan interaction online, but halseys manager of both their makeup brands posted a link to a fundraiser for Isreal, which has since been deleted since halseys Instagram statement. I understand they got a brand to run now but it truly felt gross watching about faces insta go silent for a few days after her statement just to then post a 25 dollar zine and more about face stuff, while never acknowledging their manager. I get that they got swatted and all that but like.... normies get swatted and have illnesses and small children and they can't just hire more security or move into a new mansion. Like I get rich people have problems too but they also have money, and that's something not a lot of us get the privilege of having.

I hear you. I agree that that's gross.

I didn't hear about this specific incident though, so I need to clarify - was this fundraiser posted on any account associated directly with Halsey? Or was the fundraiser posted to a personal account controlled by an employee of Halsey's?

If the fundraiser was posted to an AF account, then yes, obviously that's not okay and Halsey should make a statement, and should make it very clear that her brands do not support Israel.

But if the fundraiser was posted to a personal account by an employee of Halsey's... look, I don't support Israel on any level, but it's also not appropriate for any employer to try to dictate what their employees can and cannot post about. A thorough inventory into someone's political beliefs when the only thing they're meant to do is sell your makeup brand is not exactly appropriate either, not even for someone as outspoken as Halsey is about politics.

I tried to look this up since I completely missed it, so I'll have to take your word for it. I have to assume that the fundraiser was posted to the About-Face and AF94 accounts, because I don't think there's anything Halsey can or should have done about an employee's personal social media posts (other than cut ties after the fact.)

If that's the case, and the fundraiser was posted to any account directly connected with Halsey, then I agree that it's very disappointing and Halsey should have made a direct statement about it. I can definitely see why that upset people, and it should have.

With all that being said, even taking my disappointment around that into account - Halsey is human. Yes, they do have access to resources and money and options that most of us will never have. Yes, there are people out there with fewer resources, going through worse, that are doing more work. That's always true, for everyone. But I think it's okay to give people grace, and recognize when they're going through a particularly hard time, especially when they've been working pretty much non-stop for ten years.

Everyone can always do more, celebrities especially. But Halsey's relative silence now does not erase or undo any of the impact or work they've done in the past, and will likely do in the future.

And one thing about them having money is that they've likely been able to donate significantly more cash to that cause than you or I have. On a purely utilitarian level, she's done more than we ever will be able to. And she should! But like, let's be real about actual impact versus performative social media posts.

People can't be 100% on it 100% of the time, even with tons of cash and support and staff. I think H does pretty okay. I am not bothered by people keeping her in check, but I think there's a line.

And fwiw, my original post was less so about Halsey's political activity and more so about like, parasocial codependent fans who are sad she doesn't post as much anymore, lol. People saying shit like "Halsey has been different ever since ______" and are including things that predate the most current situation in Palestine. I have much bigger issue with the people just whining about how little content there was this year than I do people with legitimate concerns about her politics.

[doberbutts]

Re: willingness to discuss male privilege. Same hat as a trans woman, but coming from the opposite direction. I acknowledge that being raised as a boy impacted me and gave me some amount of privilege (along with some sexist thought patterns that I'm still trying to move beyond). The problem isn't merely admitting that, but rather assuming that it disqualifies me from womanhood. Likewise the problem isn't in admitting that trans men face misogyny before (and after!) transition, it's in assuming that that experience disqualifies trans men from manhood.

Oh yeah, absolutely. For a long time I've thought that the appropriate reaction to "well you were [sex] socialized and recieve [sex] privilege!!!" is... "yeah, and?" People have different experiences sometimes. Doesn't make you not a man or not a woman.

I have an internet friend- a trans woman- who looks *identical* to a cis woman I used to go to church with. Like, I knew this cis woman had a brother while I was still hanging out in person with her and they look so alike that at some point I had to be like "hey weird question are you related to [cis friend] because you literally look just like her". I swear if I photoshopped them into a photo together you would not be able to tell which one's amab and which one's afab. I sent her a photo of my cis friend to prove it and she was like "WTF Jaz how did you make friends with my doppleganger before you even knew me"

Anyway. This trans woman friend of mine is generally fairly willing to discuss how, prior to transition, she DID receive benefits of being read as male and she DID see how cis women were treated poorly in comparison to her, because it hooks into how it made her very afraid of coming out, because she knew there was a certain safety in the closet that she could not yet give up. She did eventually come out. She also got kicked out of her family pretty much immediately, moved across the country, and now lives with her wife who she loves very much. And in telling her story she's very willing to discuss how much she lost when she chose transition over suicide, and the mental peace she gained in transition.

But she's afraid to discuss it openly, because many times terfs and radfems use it as ammo against her, saying that it's proof of her "male socialization" and thus she could never be a "real woman". And so she doesn't, and she only talks about it in private conversation, because she's tired of her past being used as a weapon against her.

Similarly, as a trans man, I'm more than willing to discuss when I notice that things are going better for me due to being read as a man. I'm more than willing to say that I am the receiver of some highly conditional male privilege. But instead of listening to the rest of the conversation- how misogyny affects my life and also how being read as male is NOT safe for me due to my race- many people stop listening at the "yes sometimes it benefits me to be read as male in a specific interaction" and use that as a weapon to silence me or others when they try to tell their stories.

It all sucks!!! We should be able to talk about our lives without fearing who will use our words against us. And the fact that we can't is a symptom of the larger problem of transphobia still baked in to not only society but our own communities.

[palant1r]

my issues with the visible/invisible disability paradigm

So. I'm not super well versed in disability theory and history. This is more meant to prompt discussion than declare a One Right Position. But I really started thinking about the idea of visible vs invisible disabilities recently, and the more I think about it, the more I really don't like its use in most discussions of disability and ableism. I'm not ruling out that it has useful specific use cases, and I do think it can be useful vocabulary and shorthand, but...I have Problems with its use. Here are some of my Problems.

-Visible to whom? Invisible to whom? An "invisible" disability is eminently visible to the person who has it, obviously. By definition, a disability affects one's experience of the world. So it's a dichotomy that can't be determined just by the experience of the disabled person. Instead, it's defined entirely by how abled people and abled society perceive someone's disability. And like. It's obviously useful in many cases to discuss whether one's disability is acknowledged or seen by society at large, but it doesn't sit right with me to identify by how my disability is perceived by others rather than how I experience it. That paradigm seems to run counter to any potential uses of these definitions to find solidarity to other disabled people with similar experiences.

-Related to the above point, different people are better at spotting disabilities than others. Like, I'm more familiar with what certain neurological disabilities look like than many people, and a very many people are more familiar than I am. How do we categorize, say, an autistic person who speaks in a way that is immediately identifiable to people who know other autistic people, but which is read by most abled people as awkward? How do we characterize people with flat affect that many people won't realize is the result of a neurological condition? How do we characterize people who use assistive devices that appear like ones used by those with temporary injuries, or vice versa? Speaking of which — how useful is visibility as a category for characterizing how people are perceived by society and the activism they can benefit from, when people with temporary injuries will often appear visibly disabled?

-What does "visible" even mean? Immediately visible from anyone looking at us? Noticeable after seeing us walk? Talk? Do a task requiring fine motor skills? If someone has a disability that affects certain skills, are they visibly disabled if they're never in a situation that demands those skills? What about disabilities that aren't obvious to someone interacting with us, but that they'll be able to notice the signs of once we tell them about it?

-I see the invisible/visible dichotomy discussed a lot in conversations about privilege and intersectionality. While it is true that the disabled community is extremely diverse with needs that vary wildly, and I do think there is a place for distinguishing different disabilities by the oppression they face in society (though obviously solidarity will always be the most important thing), I don't think this dichotomy is useful even for that purpose. Every category of disability faces unique but related oppression. Other people have posted about this in more detail, but ableism doesn't distinguish that much between visible and invisible disabilities. I've yet to come across a conversation about competing needs and varying oppression where visible/invisible is the most useful framing device for that conversation.

-It implies two discrete categories that disabilities can be sorted into, which just...isn't the case. There are tons of disabilities that can be either visible or invisible depending on symptoms, the person, or even if it's a good or bad day. Like, I have an invisible disability. I also have a disability that puts plenty of people who have it in wheelchairs. It's a disability that was immediately visible for a brief time in my life, but no longer is. I'm invisibly disabled, but it's hard to argue that MS is an invisible disability.

-I don't think it offers meaningful guidance in praxis and advocacy. Visibly and invisibly disabled people both need more accommodations and changes to society. And we can't use this dichotomy to discuss varying accommodation needs, because those needs will often overlap. Elevators benefit people who use mobility aids and people with chronic fatigue, for example. We all need more sick leave, the ability to marry without losing benefits, protection from discrimination in the workplace...the list goes on.

Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts. Please feel free to discuss in the replies/reblogs, I want to hear what people think about this, or if there's a good reason for the invisible/visible dichotomy I'm missing out on