#fat liberation is a race issue

[aliosne]

I keep seeing people spout Weird Shit about fat people on this site and im just so fucking tired didnt we litigate this shit back in like 2013

[transmutationisms]

not the ko-fi anon for reading lists but i am interested in reading more about diabetes and fatness not being a disease, if you happen to have any recs :)

im not sure what your familiarity is with concepts like medicalisation and biopolitics more broadly but these are pretty foundational ideas for this critique.

if you're new to critical readings on fatness & weight then i think two decent places to start are bacon & aphramor's 'body respect' and paul campos's 'the obesity myth', though both have shortcomings imo. j eric oliver's 'fat politics' probably falls into this category as well. all of these are afflicted with liberalisms and there are also issues that i think often arise from projects that have to read archives or bodies research 'backwards', but these are still useful for introducing paradigms that problematise the medicalisation of fatness, and also raise some of the (many, many) methodological issues plaguing dietetic and weight science.

nicolas rasmussen's 'fat in the fifties' is useful on the question of medicalisation because he presents the rise and fall of fears about an american 'obesity epidemic' in the 1950s as a case study and examinines the political and social (ie, not apolitically scientific) factors that configured fatness as a disease and a pressing political problem in a specific social context, and then the factors that made this 'epidemic' slide further from official view for a few decades after. i disagree with rasmussen on a lot of his policy discussion and he's not aligned with fat liberation by any means; nevertheless i think the historicisation he does here is valuable for anyone interested in the medicalisation of fatness. susan greenhalgh made a case study of china more recently in "neoliberal science, chinese style" in 'social studies of science' 46.4: 485–510 (DOI 10.1177/0306312716655501).

on the more sociological side i'd strongly recommend sabrina strings's 'fearing the black body' and da'shaun harrison's 'belly of the beast'. these focus more on anti-fat attitudes and cultural history/analysis than on directly deconstructing medicalisation and medical research.

wrt diabetes, i would recommend anthony ryan hatch's 'blood sugar', which argues that current scientific and cultural conceptions of metabolic syndrome reify biologised and genetic ideas of race and racial fixity; hatch sees the proposed treatments and diagnostic methods as failing to interrogate the social and economic factors that produce racial disparities in health. james doucet-battle also discusses this in 'sweetness in the blood'. hay and fiddler's 'inventing the thrifty gene: the science of settler colonialism' tackles an analogous medical discourse of race, the idea that indigenous peoples are genetically predisposed to diabetes and obesity, and the ways in which this concept rests on and reinforces categories of race while eliding the colonialism and racism that actually result in poorer health outcomes for indigenous populations. a broader history of diabetes and racial medicine is arleen marcia tuchman's 'diabetes: a history of race and disease', and i also want to pick up karen throsby's 'sugar rush', which came out just last year i think.

[oldguardleatherdog]

let me start by saying, I'm okay to agree to disagree on this, and I respect you greatly as my queer elder. I hesitate to even send this because I don't think this cause is worth dogpiling (and not even the fun way) on anyone against and , like , I will continue to follow and admire you as a mutual who has been through a lot of the hell that I'm going through right now and got to a place I want to someday be. (for context, I am currently housing & food insecure and am trying to live in a queer-accepting city)

Posting will never be praxis, you are my brother in arms no matter what you call trump or cops or whatever. There are some fat liberation blogs that take issue with calling cops "pigs" for a lot of the reasons I bristle at calling Trump a fatass, and like, if someone is actively fighting cops who can and will actively hurt me and my found family, I don't care what names they shout while doing it. So I see where you are coming from and I'm glad you fight for me. I fight for us too, in what little ways I can while I keep me and my found family afloat. I do better work in the community just by existing around people as a living breathing transgender than I could do in a million posts on this website.

I do think that this is a valuable conversation to have, though, even though you are completely right that this is a trivial thing and not at all the bigger, more real issue at hand. I think it's still important, on online platforms such as this, to talk about how we refer to the other people on this planet.

Think about why you didn't call Trump a "retard". You certainly could have, it doesn't *not* apply to some of his behavior. I know people of our generations once used that word a lot, and we don't anymore. Why and when did we change that? I honestly don't remember. For me, my aunt was medically classified as "retarded" and she was the best person I'd ever met, so I decided that word shouldn't mean bad things. The first time I ever hit someone was over them using that word in a derogative way. it wasn't about "mental illness positivity" it was about humanizing the people that word has been used against - people who have been stigmatized and oppressed with that word.

Right now, hopefully, the same thing is happening to the word "obese". Fat people are less likely to be hired, granted loans or secure housing. they can be kicked out of airplanes and fired from their jobs because of their body size. There have been laws proposed to take fat children away from their parents and "treatments" proposed to wire children's jaws shut and starve them to make them thinner. They are often medically mistreated and misdiagnosed. I once went to a doctor with an ear infection and instead of antibiotics, he prescribed me *bariatric surgery.* I have been refused transgender top-surgery because of my BMI, which keeps me at a passively higher risk for self-injury and worse.

I do not care about body positivity. Honestly, between being fat, trans, and poor, I'm at a point where I've given up on ever feeling good about my body again. All I care about is getting jobs and meds and keeping a roof over my family's head and food on our table. Normalizing the idea that fat is a bad thing that anyone can change continues that stigma. When you use Fat as an insult, you are saying fat=bad. Fat is a neutral thing that some bodies can be, like short or tall or lean. The revolution needs to be intersectional, and body size is another axis of oppression that needs to be acknowledged, just like sexuality, gender, race, class, disability, etc.

If you've gotten this far, thank you for hearing me out. I'm sorry that others are just performatively parroting the same things over and over. Civility is bullshit, and if you still want to use body shaming as one of the ways you fight against bigotry, it doesn't really matter to me. Just as long as you acknowledge anti-fat bias as part of that bigotry too.

Thank you for writing and sharing your life experiences with me, and for your solidarity as well. You're striving to make your way as part of a despised minority in a world that's turned unspeakably harsh toward you in an aggressively mean way seemingly overnight, and I admire you for the life you have lived, for your courage and perseverance during this difficult time where resources are scant and your housing and food security is uncertain at best.

(FWIW, after I was bombed out of my Lower Manhattan home on September 11th, my income went from six figures down to nothing overnight, and I was homeless and destitute for years. Twenty years ago, I was where you are now, and I can tell you that what you're enduring today will not last forever, that there is light and hope and blessing in your future, that you're not as alone as you might think, that you must never give up.)

What more can I do to make the point that "fat" has nothing to do with this? As I've said, I grew up obese, and it wasn't until I enlisted in the Army at age 17 that I was able to free myself from my violent and abusive family and unlock the potential of the body that had been hidden under layers of fat and shame all my life. I know that my path is not for everybody, that many others are not so fortunate, and I ceased long ago to think that fat equals bad or lack of character or any other pejorative attitude that society has attached to it for generations. I hope I've made that clear and that you take my word as truth.

I am not saying "let's fat-shame Donald Trump to make him feel bad." I am saying that I'm deeply troubled by the LGBTQ+ community prioritizing hurt feelings over the very real damage that's being done to us right now all over the country by Trump, his minions, his proxies, and his cult of bloodthirsty followers and worshippers. Trump's accomplices in Congress and state legislatures and Moms For Liberty are taking over school boards all over the country, banning books and emptying library shelves and harassing teachers and librarians to the point where they're being run out of town, where the State of Missouri has defunded its entire public library system rather than follow a court order to restore books banned just for featuring LGBTQ+ characters.

DeSantis and Abbott have put in place policies that are unspeakably brutal, that are forcing trans people in Florida to slowly and brutally revert to their pre-transition state, that have given health care providers in Florida the right to deny treatment to you and me and all LGBTQ+ people because we are gay, lesbian, non-binary, trans... but God forbid we should call Trump mean names!

We've seen what happens when we buy into the "when they go low, we go high" fantasy pipe dream. This is not the way the world works, it has never been, and we need to put this loser idea in the trash bin where it belongs once and for all.

We're being attacked and harmed in unspeakable ways that are happening now. This is not theoretical or hypothetical. It's happening to us, to those we love, this minute and every minute of every day. And worse is in the pipeline - they're writing laws that will place us under virtual house arrest, that will regulate where we're allowed to go in our own cities and towns, when we're allowed to be seen in public, when and where we can shop, how we're allowed to dress, even what we're allowed to say and SING, for Christ's sake!

And I'm supposed to be concerned about some minuscule hypothetical percentage of my own people being OFFENDED because I'm somehow being insensitive and violating some trivial picayune social justice warrior philosophy, because there's a possibility of some fragile flower taking it personally, and that I should shut my mouth and let the MAGA nutjobs run roughshod over us? Oh, come let Daddy kiss it! while our brothers and sisters are suffering in real time. Sickening.

Anyone who has a problem with my stance doesn't have to follow me or emulate my proven effective tactics as an activist with 37 years of successfully defending our rights under my belt if they're so dainty and delicate and easily bruised. Everyone else that sees this for the strawman bullshit it is, get ready to hit the streets with bullhorns and whistles once again. We've got work to do.

Your arguments are strong and well-reasoned, and I accept and acknowledge everything you're saying. We can disagree on this, certainly, and still work together to turn back the progress that the MAGAs are making, restore our rights, and protect ourselves and each other. But that will require the snowflake contingent among us to get their collective head out of their collective ass, stop whining, and get with the damn program. Calling me names and telling me I'm being a bad gay activist is a waste of time and energy that should be spent fighting the fascists and the haters who are out to kill us.

And to you, my friend and fellow traveler with a radiantly beautiful soul and spirit, I urge you to hang in there, to keep the faith, to keep caring about life, to work with me to secure our own future and the future of our kind. I send to you my very best wishes, energy, and prayers that you will find your way to a place of health, security, stability, and love for yourself and for this precious community to whom we've both dedicated our lives, who mean the world to us.

Yours In Service, Animal J. Smith

[mueritos]

I browse of the bigger top surgery subreddits because people ask for advice and I like to be helpful and offer any advice I can give. One thing that always sours me is the fat phobia/antiblackness etc. Even if it's only subtle sometimes. I remember looking for post op photos for fat non white trans men was impossible and I constantly see white and thin bodies that get the most positive comments and usually rocket to the top of the subreddit. I I wish I could say something without causing an uproar. It just pisses me off seeing people (even sub consciously) imply anyone not white who doesn't have perfect thin scars as undesirable or ugly. Or anyone who has dogs ears or needs revisions should be ashamed. Most of the subreddit is really great but I can't escape how whiteness is always upheld as the most desirable. - a black trans man

Very true! This reminds me about a great article that I find sums up this culture, but not in a way I hoped. I still think this article is a great read, but it definitely does not touch upon the ways online spaces still mimic real life white supremacy. The article is called Doing Gender Beyond the Binary: A Virtual Ethnography by Helana Darwin. Reading it, you can fill in the spots on where exactly you know the issues exist, from asking strangers whether you "pass" or not, from only having white people within those reddit forums.

I'm sorry you havent be able to find spaces and information that are trans BIPOC centered. Fuck, even I haven't, and I have tried for a very long time to find one online. Reddit forums are very realistic in the way people share and express information, especially because character limits dont exist on there, but also because Reddit is a genuinely good resource for trans people....but not without its limitations and issues. While the online space has provided easy access to information and community, it is still nothing like IRL spaces of true community and true liberation. Whiteness is always upheld in whatever space you are in, but at the very least, we can cultivate spaces where we are working AGAINST that. A lot of IRL and forum spaces just don't do that, even if they are open to BIPOC experiences being expressed. It's still very much superficial, and they only want us if we don't talk too much about culture/race/ethnic identities.

I will offer you, however, Kayden Coleman on instagram. He's been a wonderful resource and educator, on top of being a gay, fat, Black trans man who is also disabled. He has been so unapologetic about everything and anything, and it is a literal breath of fresh air from the overall dominant culture regarding queerness.

If i ever find spaces that are for us, I will be more than happy to share them, and I hope anyone in the notes can sound off on other resources/people who are safe and inclusive to BIPOC queer experiences!

[killingmyself-s-l-o-w-l-y]

The question of the day is:

if you don't want to watch the news, does that make you racist?

For context the reason I don't want to watch the news is cuz I NEVER want to watch the news, regardless of what's on it. Whether it be positive or negative.

That being said, someone I considered my bestest friend told me I'm racist and privileged cuz I'm white (she's mixed) and cuz the news makes me depressed. Being that the main issue in the news currently is the fucking war in Israel and Palestine. And apparently, at least according to her, this has to do with race??? Even tho it's a religion war. A territory war. Saying this is about race is ass backward since Palestinian's aren't a race. The same way American's are not a race. But yeah I'm so privileged cuz I can turn off the news (bro, so can she!!) and forget that it exists cuz living in ignorance is, well, ignorant. Cuz "silence is violence". That's bullshit BTW. She brought up all these liberal leftist talking points. And said I need to post shit online cuz it'll "make a difference" or whatever. yeah okay, it'll totally stop the war that's been going on longer than I've been alive. Same way that posting a little black square for blm stopped black lives from being murdered, uh-huh.

Anyways this delved into her bringing up my ed and telling me it's not valid cuz she's fat and I have no right to say I'm fat cuz I'm "significantly tinier than her" (bro it's a fucking eating DISORDER. It's not rational)

Another reason I didn't want to watch the news or whatever is that it's all lies. It's so biased and I didn't want to get triggered and relapse. Since I'm now a mother I was hoping to stay clean and healthy. Welp no, this whole situation caused me to relapse not only on my ed but on self harm. Trust me, if I wasn't breastfeeding I'd be downing diet pills like candy. But either way, I've been so incredibly depressed. I've been sleeping most of the day. I don't even want to be with my baby. I cried a lot over this. I just don't understand.... we've been friends since forever. Why all of a sudden has she turned into a raging bitch?!

I deleted social media cuz I was sick of seeing her stupid face.

I mean there's a lot of factors, like, not sleeping, not eating well, abusive mother, childhood trauma, shitty partner, having a toddler, money issues, body image issues, whatever else she's going thru. But the fucking thing is, I'm not your fucking punching bag. What the actual fuck is wrong with you?!

And so she has my stroller. And I have her shit cuz she had spend the night and didn't take all her shit with her when she left cuz she was going to come back but now,,,, whatever. I'm so fucking pissed.

But ya know, I'm just a racist, white privileged American. 🙄

[puraiuddo]

re: you ever think about how fucking low the bar is for Harry Potter fans 

@starfoxfanatic​

Cho chang is a real Chinese name,

It’s literally not and here’s a breakdown.

If you think Kinglsey Shcaklebolt's name is a sing the author ahs racial hatred just because it has "shackle" in it, your paranoid. Likewise combing  names from different asian cultures isn't  sign of race hatred anyway.

Have you ever heard the term

microaggression [/ˌmīkrōəˈɡreSHən/]

a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.

I’m not saying that JKR’s screaming from the rooftops that poc suck.

I’m saying that she’s put so little effort into the naming and characterization of any non-white characters, that she shows her internalized racism by choosing the most stereotypical (prejudicial) names and traits for poc actually, really, she put no effort into anyone who’s not british and claiming it’s just being clever.

It’s a literal meme to joke about what your JKR-name would be based on your ethnicity.

Muscle mass, etc nothing to do with skin tone and therefore nothing to do with racism.

I legitimately snorted at this.

“Differences in body composition between black and white women have been well established. Black women have more bone and muscle mass, but less fat, as a percentage of body weight, than white women..”[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9395578/]

Numerous jews ahve refuted the claim that she is antisemitic, dismissed claims about the goblins as paranoia/not even meant ot be taken seriously, and pointed out Rowling is and lay AGAINST antisemitism: [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/campaign-against-antisemitism-defends-j-k-rowling-jon-stewart-goblin-claims-1278891/ [2] https://momentmag.com/debunking-the-harry-potter-anti-semitism-myth/

I wonder if you even read the first article... in which they say that the association between goblins and Jewish people is so ingrained into Western thinking that Rowling probably just didn’t even think about it!

Which, once more, leads to my statement that her liberal standings are purely performative. She has a barely passable understanding of everything she totes around for brownie points. She’s an ally when it’s easy and when it’s safe. Which is, honestly, hardly allyship at all.

She has never been as supportive of LGBT community or racial equality or any other positive movement, as much as she has been in her campaign to kill off trans people.

 In the US, there are foot tall spaces between the floors of bathroom stalls and the walls. he would not need to bust down the door.

You never answered: do you HONESTLY believe that if man really wanted to attack or peep on a woman in a bathroom that he’d change his mind if there was a law that specifically says he can’t claim to be a woman and do it?

And why don’t you provide some statistics on how often a trans woman has been caught peeping if it’s clearly such a prevalent, pressing issue? Meanwhile, I’ll counter with dozens of article of cis men simply hiding cameras.

Moreover, by your logic, couldn’t a lesbian be just as dangerous?

And, flipping the situation on its head, who’s to say all this suspicion and paranoia (over a non existent issue!!) isn’t going to lead to TERFs peeping through stall cracks to make sure you don’t have a penis? It’s already led to countless cis women being harassed or even ejected from bathrooms.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-groups-defend-j-k-rowling-over-claim-harry-potter-goblins-antisemitic/

US legislation doe snot represent the gender critical feminist movement. Plus a simple DNA test can prove someone's chromosomes not need for an invasive vaginal swab.

“gender critical feminist movement“ funny way to say TERF

Also, are you sure? Are you real sure?

GOP senator quotes J.K. Rowling while blocking vote on LGBTQ bill

[wovetherapy]

Body Image and Mental Health

Body image is a complex topic that is often simplified into the vantage point of: you are either happy or unhappy with the way your body looks. In reality, it is not a black and white topic, although historically race has been and continues to be inseparable from the topic of body image… amongst other intersecting identities.

What is body image?

“Body image” is somewhat of an umbrella term, encompassing any part or whole of one’s body, from weight to face to skin, etc. There are four aspects to body image:

Perceptual - how you perceive yourself… what you see can be different from reality or how others see you.

Affective - how you feel about your body image… this can differ regarding various parts of your body.

Cognitive - how you think about your body… this includes how you incorporate your body image with the rest of your life (e.g. “If I was thinner or more muscular, I would be more popular or have a better dating life.”)

Behavioral - how you act in regard to your body image… this encompasses more or less healthy behaviors (i.e. due to their body image, people may choose to exercise more, socialize less, change their diet, etc.)

Body image movements: distinguishing between body positivity, neutrality, and liberation

Body Positivity encourages unconditional love and positive regard for one’s body, no matter how one looks or feels. The body positivity movement originated from the fat acceptance movement of the 1960s, led by a group of fat, queer, Black women. They were integral in the recognition of the intersectionality of race, class, gender, sexuality, and weight stigma. Body positivity looks much different than its original roots. Critics contend that the movement has been “gentrified by white-centered politics” (Griffin et al., 2022), with efforts centering thin and relatively thin white women.

Body neutrality is about acceptance, focusing on the capabilities of one’s body rather than looks. It approaches body image through a neutral lens, acknowledging that people may not love their bodies all the time. Body neutrality promotes non-judgment of one’s body, accepting and respecting however one’s body exists.

Body liberationis “the freedom from social and political systems of oppression that designate certain bodies as more worthy, healthy, and desirable than others”. It provides space to move past a body truce and explore what it means to give oneself permission to live life unapologetically as oneself. Body liberation encourages people to feel all of the emotions that may emerge due to societal biases and discrimination, and it does not urge acceptance of what may not feel acceptable. It also creates space for a multicultural lens, expanding the suffocating ideals of Western beauty standards.

Body Image and Mental Health

Body image and mental health are often closely intertwined and cyclical in nature, such that they can be difficult to individuate. One’s body image may impact their mental health, and vice versa. Body image can show up in one’s self esteem, personality, interpersonal relationships, and overall physical and emotional wellbeing. Examples of mental health concerns related to body image may include: anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, eating disorders/disordered eating (see previous blog post on Eating Disorders from an intersectional lens), feelings of shame or guilt, financial strain, negative self talk, poor self esteem, preoccupation with weight/body type, interpersonal issues, etc.

Body dissatisfaction, or negative body image, can be described as negative thoughts and feelings associated with one’s body image. Research has found that higher body dissatisfaction is positively associated with poor quality of life, psychological distress, and the risk of unhealthy eating behaviors and eating disorders (Mental Health Foundation). Body image does not always impact one’s mental health in a negative manner, although, especially for minoritized individuals, body dissatisfaction regularly begins at a young age. Half of elementary school aged girls have weight concerns or are worried about becoming fat, according to the National Eating Disorders Association. Being bullied at school for their appearance or growing up in a household where weight is an issue are known risk factors for body image issues in children, and common experiences for BIPOC individuals amongst those with other marginalized identities and bodies. Although body dissatisfaction often begins at a young age, it can continue throughout adulthood, especially if left unaddressed. However, there are absolutely ways to approach improving one’s body image as an adult.

Improving body image as an adult

Identify and challenge negative thoughts - Recognize internal and external dialogue regarding your body image. Think critically about what comes up automatically or what is being said. Where are these thoughts coming from? Are they realistic? What are they rooted in? How are these thoughts serving you? By tuning into these thoughts, you can develop agency and choice in the direction you want to move in.

Find community -In all the complex layers, struggling with one’s body image can feel isolating due to various internal and external factors. Body image satisfaction, like most topics, is not a dichotomous subject. Additionally, satisfaction with one’s body is not a requirement for positive mental health. Discourse has shifted to include the concepts of body positivity, body neutrality/body acceptance, and body liberation, which have been associated with higher levels of overall wellbeing. By gaining understanding of each of these movements, one may identify what they resonate with and find community and better relationship with one’s body image and mental health.

Pay attention to your social media consumption - Recognize your agency in who you follow and what comes up on your social media feed(s). Be cognizant of comparison culture and try not to compare yourself to others. Be intentional in removing content which no longer serves you, and be active in expanding and curating a diverse online space that feels more aligned with your own values or the values you would like to embrace or incorporate into your life.

Observe nature - Nature provides countless examples of beauty in diversity and spectrums of existence. Spend time noticing the myriad shapes, colors, sizes, functions, sexualities, abilities, existences, and relationships in the natural world. Perhaps you would be open to allowing yourself to be imaginative and playful in this space, and perhaps you could see ways to translate this or incorporate these observations into other spaces in your life.

Work with a therapist - If you are struggling with body image, it may be helpful to speak with a mental health professional. The collaborative space could be helpful to process your thoughts, experiences, and relationship with self and others and to elucidate how you would like to relate to your body image and what it would look like for you to achieve this.

If you’re interested in scheduling an appointment or you’d like more information, please contact us.

[cascadianights]

I've been trying to put this into words for a While now

I think a big reason a lot of white people have an issue with acknowledging their very real Privilege (beyond the obvious) is that... ok, its the presence of benefits and perks & the absence of barriers and obstacles. But the default assumption of white privilege, of what those benefits or obstacles ARE, is essentially the archetype of a WASP - generally a male one too. This nebulous, theoretical group of perks & lack of barriers that people often present as white privilege (when in reality then tend to be talking about CLASS) fails to capture the lived reality of a VAST, HUGE majority of poor white people.

They're going to be hostile to the idea that they had opportunities to advance in the workplace that others didn't, when they worked the same shit job at the mill their entire short life. The idea that they had alumni family to help secure them a good spot at a college their parents paid for, rather than being the first person in their family to go to even community college just to have to drop out and take care of siblings. The idea that they lived life with financial and food stability, when they grew up in a family of 8 siblings having a slice of bread each for breakfast and lunch because their mom couldn't access birth control and their dad was an abusive drunk. These aren't theoretical exceptions! This isn't the minority of white people, this is the reality for MILLIONS of people!!

There are absolutely things that apply across the board when talking about white privilege - situations a white person will never face because they are white, that a black person will face because they are black. But is that divide, based on race instead of assumptions about class, really the image conjured by/for many people when we talk about white privilege now? Especially in current liberal circles, where any level of privilege can be used to discredit and dismiss someone's reality - to declare them exempt from a huge swath of dangers, and benefit to a theoretical upper class lifestyle of relative ease. The logic follows that if the speaker is white, or white-passing, much about their life can be assumed and much can be written off that they could not possibly understand or have experienced - they must out and offer another aspect of their identity (disabled, queer, fat, etc) to show they have any right to speak on marginalization. Being white protects you around cops, until the moment you're dirt poor, or disabled, or visibly trans, or just the right queer body they were looking to teach a lesson to that night. Being white protects you in our current government, until you're a felon with no vote, or a disabled person declared unfit to make your own decisions and sterilized.

All this to say, liberals cannot keep clinging to the idea & narrative that white equals automatic access to a huge amount of privileges and protections that are actually Hugely reliant on class and a lack of intersecting identities. Dirt poor people who hear "white privilege" used almost exclusively to describe WASPS, from the mouths of the Liberal Left who have ignored the plight of the rural poor for decades, who are ACTIVELY making jokes about stupid southerners and how we should just cut off parts of the country and let them drown, will not result in them listening! They will not go self introspect about their own biases! They will not look up the real nuances of white privilege and class privilege and how those are linked but not inextricably. They will not think about how to eliminate barriers and create opportunities for other people. They WILL be further alienated from the left and being able to actually look into their very real privilege in the future though!!

[drvikasfitness]

Best Weight Loss Program in Kolkata - Drvikasfitness

The Most Effective Exercise and Weight Loss Program in Kolkata Takes It's Time

Many individuals battle with weight gain nowadays and realize they ought to go on an activity and health improvement plan, yet it tends to be hard to tell where to begin. There is such a lot of data out there about getting more fit, you might ponder who you can truly trust to give you great direction about the activity and get-healthy plan that can work for you in Weight Loss Program in Delhi . One of the most incredible spots to go for help assuming you end up needing this kind of guidance is your own family specialist.

Pose your Physician the accompanying Important Inquiries in Weight Loss Program in Kolkata

To be in good shape, getting some information about a get-healthy plan is essential. A great many people who approach clamoring for a get-healthy plan don't really require one. It is considering this, that specialists emphatically prescribe that one ought to set aside opportunity to visit the specialist and clarify pressing issues in Weight Loss Program in Kolkata . Different inquiries that ought to be posed include: What is my Overall Health? What is my Body Mass Index (BMI)? What is my Weight? Taking into account my wellbeing, what counsel do you as a specialist, have for me with respect to a Weight Loss Program?

Actually as a specialist in this field, I emphatically guidance that extra inquiries commenced on one's wellbeing ought to be inquired. These inquiries incorporate - What should my weight reduction objectives be and what measures would it be a good idea for me to take to achieve them in Weight Loss Program in Mumbai ? How does overabundance weight influence my weight and what intricacies are probably going to pop up because of postponed activity on a health improvement plan? Moreover, a painstakingly delineated program could be mentioned from a fitness coach or a nutritionist.

For over-loads, it is suggested that questions ought to rotate around home grown/regular cures, remedy and meds that help with diminishing one craving to a significant least. What's more, one could likewise inquire as to whether they are contender for careful get-healthy in Weight Loss Program in Delhi plans or on the other hand on the off chance that trying all dietary and actual means to shed overabundance pounds is the first and smartest option.

A Gradual yet Healthy Way in Weight loss Program in Kolkata

An assortment of prevailing fashion consumes less calories exist. This is comprehensive of those that are pivoted upon weight supplements to help one shed that additional pound. Nonetheless, celebration shouldn't begin since one can't cling to those prevailing fashion counts calories for a really long time. For what reason is this so in Weight Loss Program in Kolkata ? This is so in light of the fact that these trend eats less carbs instances of which incorporate grapefruit and cabbage soup are planned explicitly for momentary use. for example they can't be utilized for a long haul. What they really do is assist one with losing water weight while dismissing fat weight.

Then, at that point, what is the arrangement? The answer for getting in shape perfectly is setting out on an activity and get-healthy plan that considers active work joined with a solid and adjusted diet. One would likewise have to adjust dietary patterns, watch what is eaten and forever however continuously end liberated from vices in Weight Loss Program in Mumbai . From encounters, this has been the sole justification behind disappointments in the get-healthy plan. Most specialists concur that without a firmly controlled way to deal with diet and exercise, outcome in getting thinner on the long haul can't be accomplished.

Keep in mind, without rushing generally comes out on top in the race. Change your methodology towards health improvement plan today. A gradual get-healthy plan is the ideal get-healthy plan for you. It will not acquire unexpected changes your body and psyche it that your body could do without abrupt changes. It brings helpful changes steadily. You ought to have the option to decrease 1 to 2 pounds each week utilizing gradual health improvement plans in Weight Loss Program in Delhi .

Assuming you have what is happening where the main program that can be helpful is the speedy get-healthy plan, then you can utilize it however when your motivation is satisfied, you ought to leave that program and again you ought to search for a gradual health improvement plan. There are different gradual health improvement plans in Weight Loss Program in Kolkata . You ought to pick the one that suits you more than any other person. Besides, you ought to likewise contemplate joining broadly and universally perceived health improvement plans like Weight Watchers and so forth that includes specialists in the field.

For more https://www.drvikasfitness.com/weight-loss-program-in-Mumbai

[cheeseburgersinparadise]

Can feederism be both body positive and a real turn on? Wank bank might be a little harsh, but I’m sure that’s all it is to some.

this is something I genuinely grapple with because I feel like a lot of times the two (feedism and fat positivity) are at odds with each other. Fetishization of fat bodies is part of why we need fat positivity because often times fat bodies are only seen as desirable within fetish spaces. (It’s not just about sexual desirability tho; fat positivity is part of fat liberation and body politics as well.)

I think you can approach something from an informed place that greatly alters your experience with it and impact on it. Going into the feedism community with the knowledge of the real life impact and issues facing fat folks (especially the intersectionality with race, gender, socioeconomic status etc) can create a safer and more positive experience for everyone. You’re able to navigate fatphobia and all it entails and the way it plays into this kink.

Of course you can still get off to it. But I feel like understanding the roots of diet culture and fatphobia and it’s ties to racism, classism etc is super important when engaging with this kink. You can do real harm if you don’t.

Personally, I try to create a positive and liberating space on the internet where I can be horny while still validating and valuing fat bodies outside of it all. I try anyway. We can always improve but I seem to be doing all right (I hope!).

So that’s sorta the short form answer to this. The long form answer would be pages of shit and I don’t have time for that today. :p

All my fat liberation friends on here - if y’all have stuff to add please feel free!

[shirkers2018dirsanditan]

if you are going to talk food justice, as well as anti-diet industry advocacy or criticize health food scams, it is literally paramount to reclaim food for the community and for the social. food is an integral part of our social lives, traditions, and our cultures. shared food rituals, from hunting to gathering to harvesting to cooking and eating, are so fundamental to us as a species it has been key to our evolution. and the recategorization of food - as fuel for productive workers, as corporate commodity, as sinfulness and excess, as racial inferiority, as a pseudomedicalized enemy of health - has fostered the climate around food we suffer under today. the removal of the community, of the social, and the denial of the inherent political nature of ALL food has fostered this climate. so if we are talking food justice, it cannot be individualistic nor apolitical. there has to be a tacit acknowledgment of the way in which food deserts have proliferated in an environment in which food has become increasingly corporate. and we cannot talk about food without acknowledging the undercurrent of labor exploitation and colonialism that facilitates our global food networks (and that is, all food, perhaps especially foods that are better for us).

the reality is that there is a kneejerk reaction to talking about organic food or health foods (which are their own issue) or even just whole, natural foods because food is linked to class and race. making food justice about individual food groups or elements (sugar, fat, meat, etc) doesn’t challenge the classism and racism of both food industries and food “sciences.” the reality is that we are negotiating a difficult position - to dismantle corporate monopolies in our food networks while also democratizing food production and access. by ignoring the sociopolitical and making it a question of what an individual eats, we run the risk of alienating people in need. i do think food corporations share some blame for the association between whiteness, wealth, and food activism, but a lot of that for a long time has been the responsibility of white and class privileged people who have in fact liberalized food activism. and there is no way we are making any ground in that context, nor will what we produce be drastically different than where we are now. and we are already seeing that with the new forms of food consumerism that are marketed as food justice

[misterbitches]

no1cares buuuut this is my blog and i can procrastinate cos im cuteand cool. i am thrilled, truly, that there's respect for women and there's two women that (ostensibly? idk about the kid and where that goes but lets assume lol) like each other to the point where even if i do not feel connected i am glad. and from what emotion i can extract there's things that are fluttery like her looking at the hand

THIS SHOW IS A FUCKING CUTE FUCKING SHOW FULL STOP and its content is consistent and cute.n

it can't mean totally much even in its own standards. but this is how i feel. a critique or critical thinking negates none of that or how lovely it is and they seem.

(as an aside, the real estate agent in episode 2 was so cute to me idk she was hot i have a tendency to think older ppl r hot even tho i dont want them around me. and pran's mom....goaspjihugoaijpg listen LISTEN her face is like serving bitchy-cute and i love it. the girl on the rooftop was beautiful too! and who is that fat girl in the show? idk her name but we love to see it and have eyes (now if only fat people were respected in film and media lolz anyway.....))

rep means nothing and yet so much which is another issue/factor of culturalism as capitalism but it still exists and that means something but is that something enough? well, no. when we think it is is where the distraction comes and the belief in the system and not the people. and i know people are dedicated and not beholden to capital but it's more of what we have ingested in the environment, our own inherent privileges and hierarchical formation inside ourselves and out and how, in an artistic lens, that interacts with the demands of bosses and what one believes their art can propel. it isnt futile to make things—i like some great shit, some bullshit, it's about being entertained or aroused by a work and that means so much to diff ppl—and i am not nihilistic but i am critical of the presentation and the interpretation and the interaction between our interpretation and the too oversimplified connection to societal progress that is needed from this system. everything has meaning whthere we like it or not.

it's just complex and representation as solely visibility or existing in a story but not self determining (and somehow that translating in real life) meaning social progress as default byproduct is not true and it engenders myopia. life comes first, then culture or artists make new ways to get new thoughts out of there and try not to clash the messages and unfortunately that is hard and almost impossible to get right (parasite is a good ex; film about capitalism and buying in [making ppl give u money without you bending instead of selling out and usually that comes with a break when the demands ratchet up from the benefactor so they part] is what radical artists do however he is a misogynist, it still was tons of money, a cost to the environment, and fed into the same imperial hands it criticized with a nihilistic output; the awards circuit alone shows contradiction and that's something we as ppl and he as an artist must contend with. do we want the system or not? or is it simply impossible to leave the rat race?)

we are not ethical under capitalism we just have to try our best to be what we decide we want from the world/future. mine just so happens to be liberation. individual humans = / = society but they are inextricable so we all play a part in these systems/functions and they all have pitfalls and challenges of neoliberalism's formation in identity. another ex: beyonce and the BPP imagery. it was visibility but it was also commodity which directly defies the BPP project and ideology. so what did it do? (shes rich so i love her as she exists but like not her as a black capitalist so i am not interested in the political heaviness it brings as her life is contradictory to it. sorry it's girlboss teas.)

this is a bunch of interconnected thoughts between the show as artistic content and my view and society~(~(~(~(~(**~* because i dont expect much but me thinking and thinking about ways it could have made a stronger impact from a writing-directing standpoint and for a transgressive (IE shaking up and reforming the status quo not reacting to it.) none of this is srs i'm just putting off work and i have adhd and i like to think too much. i know this isnt like grand cinema but still it's a solid show for what it is; for the young'ns and teens! anyway:

but that is never enough and i feel so bogged down by the capital pressure of diversity in media because it is culturalism instead of the human in all its complexities. but i guess this shows a fundamental issue in these dramas and with women and a partner, regardless of gender, that it's kind of...empty to watch. i felt this way for lovely writer too (the girl and boy couplé) because i feel sort of soulless looking at ink and pa together outside of a sororal rship (note1)

as an artist and the closest political identity for me is libcom i am not a person that likes to force things but i think my blackness requires me to understand that i am my center even if others think we are adjuncts. capital treats us as such.

i do not feel a need to see women in shows if they fundamentally disrespect us and don't take into account what women, thai women all thai women in this case being the most important, go through. i do not want "diversity" to be shoved in because it is empty and dictated by not shifting of material conditions and the zeitgeist but just by being around as a need dictated by capitalism to build off of (2)

sexuality is not the end all be all to characters and relationships, it is a facet and it has many things to build off of. just like a man and a woman (heteronormativity) or two men (fetishism by fandom and the commodity of baiting audiences) standing near each other means nothing, it goes for two women (ESP bc for women the formations of friendships socially and culturally all have different ones) and all genders. i do not believe in queer exceptionalism either so just because it isn't exactly cross-gender means nothing in its effectiveness or goodness (3)

that is not to say pairing whoever you want together or wishes is futile or something one cannot do because everyone does!! who the fuck am i?* (4) but i am just saying that sometimes it is just two existences—even if it is supposed to feel like more or is, on paper, more but it isnt achieved.

another thing is that in these shows there is a true lack of two women being friends (and other genders or formations of social gender that are common in thailand btw) because it circles around men. WHY? the androcentrism lol the assumed sexual nature of us all before interpersonal relations not revolving aroudn such

1. to be clear, i see the inklings and sprinklings (i loooved when pa got so flustered and they were laughing and then she leaned back and looked at her) but the establishment wasn't there really for 8eps beyond some of the dialogue 2. this is not one's total goal and i do not believe everyone feels that way but i do believe we have to and do bend to the demands by also ingesting the neoliberal mindset. that being said this is not the total issue at hand here but it is something i see in fandom and i understand wanting that but wanting and the result and its context are v diff things. my critique comes from what is the most important: the material that we see so just because it is novel, and good for the show, doesn't mean i have to enjoy the existence. 3. i don't feel this is happening so directly here and i expect absolutely NOTHING from corporations and dominance in media (/art? but like idk i get iffy on that) but this means that i have a reaction to the content and not just because these people exist in these spaces. believe it or not, women don't just have singular rships dictated by men (BL in this case is assumption of patriarchy, with cross-gender it is the assumption of a women being up for grabs and constant rape) so the cross-gender relationships both platonic, romantically, whatever have to be reworked and worked on and i know that there are attempts and i like it when they mention the modern age lol but the issue is they need to subvert it still! just bc u mention it doesnt mean it's there 4. (unless ur being disgusting with kids but i digress like.) i think two youtubers that have never even met and will never meet and dont know of each other would be cute so like lmaoooo it's natural to be like aw. i mean i am not gonna write fic but ykwim; i get it. there's things i have liked and are on this blog but looking back i see cheap intimacy and shudder (i think history4, 2gether, why r u are big ones to the degree where it is embarrassing to me)

[this bY NO MEANS is me suggesting no romantic rships in BL for women particularly with women so do not misinterpret and even tho i am qu**r (i do not like this word and do not identify with it but it is easier to say) i am still critical otherwise ~art~ even if it's escapist doesn't do its job and it would be absurd to think i have to accept or enjoy everything just from it seeming so. identity ONLY goes so far. later i should probs talk about the idea of these shows being posited as "qu**rs of color"

because they are not of color in their homogenous societies and that is a misunderstanding and a very western view (hows that for people that love to use the word western wrong along with decolonization to underline a false better society before white supremacy and kyriarchy and then include black ppl in the term western bc theyre racist) of race formation ]

btw america is by no means exceptional and i want to insist that every. single. country. in. the. world. has the same issues because of kyriarchy, hierarchy, white supremacy, capitalism and they are all tied together. all of us have different ways of expressing oppression and there are pluses and minuses. america is not exceptional in fact we are fucking trash and no formation of interaction is necessarily better than the other (fatphobia in asia being bonkers insane but part of a larger issue; TERFism in the uk being BONKERS INSANE but part of their colonial bloodshed and a larger issue)

something i have always liked and been jealous of for asian cultures (something as a black person i do not feel often because i like to be respected in my race) that women (and men or people) are a lot more tactile in asia in friendships than in the west particularly in cities. i'm black so it is unfathomable for black men to be at the level of visible intimacy (we have different modes of it) that non-black people do esp those who aren't black americans. for women here, even though we are allowed to be more tactile and that is more normal, it is nowhere near what i have witnessed in shows and in reality. ink and pa holding hands is by absolutely no means uncommon in their society to the point where it confounds me lol

i'm jealous about the way women are allowed to show camaraderie that way and there's so many underpinnings that are terrible in life but i wish that i could easily show love in all the ways i want. the way i have seen women be able to be with other women in asian dramas and the physical connections that mirror it. like it is beyond me and i feel so sad that part of growing up and who i am we have to self-regulate that way. esp when slipping your hand into your friend's when you're younger (kid) meant nothing but love.

catallena by orange caramel is not a song about women in love it's about loving a woman. that doesn't mean we can't build off of that, we can, but me and all my friends that are mostly girls or non-men and qu**r are not IN LOVE even if it would be easier to be. get it? not every interaction is based on what we can get from others in terms of love and sex or that possibility. the lyrics could have deeper meaning easily since that's exactly what it says on the page but that doesn't mean it. in korean media i have seen the term "even as a girl/even as a guy" even though they are very tuned in to gender roles to the point of annoyance (act like man ho ho ho) it's interesting to see the ways we get around that.

I’m bewitched, I’m bewitched I’m bewitched, I’m bewitched The hands that brush by are warm Is she actually nice once you get to know her? My temperamental Catallena Everyone is falling for her Chic and proud, Catallena (Red Sun) (Chic Catallena) Jutti meri oye hoi hoi, I’m bewitched Softly, softly Melting, melting Shivering, shivering Trembling, I want to follow her

it isnt necessarily about her wanting because that's not what life should be about — when we look at someone and think they are pretty or gorgeous it does not mean we have to obtain them or that it means something deeper. i know there are women that are so gorgeous and you know the idea "i don't know if i want to be them or be with them" but with, say, megan thee stallion everything about her is so attractive and i know my attraction comes from a sexual[ity] place but i dont want to be with her. why? (besides the obvious of like not knowing her and her not caring abt me lmao) i am almost 30 and she is 25 and 25 yr olds are annoying. i hate capitalism and celebrity culture so subsequently i dont like any of her famous non-black or terrible black friends. i wouldn't be able to stomach her pop music, i don't tolerate boy bands. i can talk about why i like her but i know it isnt about being with her or wanting that. it wouldn't be possible. we don't know people either so the first conclusion we jump to in our society being obtaining is a farce. i want to be around megan thee, be her friend, it would be cool if i could talk to her about her more artistic side and i think she is genuinely a cool-ass bitch. i would go clubbing with her and i hate clubbing.

i love the "is she actually nice once you get to know her" line because it's about exuding coolness and wanting to be around someone. i have friends that befriended me first and made an effort to be my friend; two of them are now my best friends. it's because they thought the same and have told me—i just really liked you and wanted you in my life. i think you're cool. that's the biggest compliment to me ever lmao and i'd love to have people look at me like that and then get to know me to know that it's not true; i'm just being myself. i am nice once you get to know me. in fact i'm a loser. but they don't want to be with me.

i wish we would be able to not have the gender, social gender, and sexuality so central so these things could be said to denote admiration and possibility—which is why acting is so important and to build chemistry because people have the capacity to be drawn to others. for ex for bad buddy you genuinely believe they like each other because the actors have the capacity to imagine and put in practice through their acting themselves with a man particularly with each other.

that's why acting is so interesting and good; we can go in/out through real/fake but it's still real because we exist as bodies, humans, characters, in a structured world. i can be another person on film and be in love with a man on it and there's a possibility; we have good chemistry; i am okay with kissing him and getting physical because of it. it would be the same with anyone else if i act. it's believing that anything is possible and it comes through naturally if the foundations are there. you can believe i fell in love with this man and that in this fake life wwe could be together but also our real life perceptions seep in so it has meaning in real life. i hope that makes sense. we dont come at it objectively which is why the genuineness is important. there's different ways and styles for that to happen but that is why chemistry is tantamount and that can be built btw even with ineffective actors. so..why isnt it here

so because of that absolutely wonderfulness that allows people to be more physically affectionate ( i cannot stress to you how bizarre it is for me to see this sometimes like whatshisface kissing parn in thanks that DOES NOT HAPPEN lmao whew the diff manifestations of kyriarchy are fascinating) i felt the friendship for ink/pa but i think in my hopes of that relationship became stagnant when i saw the stalled development and a bit of force

everyone has their rships differently and i also think it's due to the actresses and just how strong (to me personally at least) nanon is he has a very tranquil aura and his acting style is really fluid. he elevates so in comparison when an extra element is introduced for others lives (even wai liking pa like lol) it's flat. sidenote: i hope he gets into like idk indie films or something i'd watch that

anyway i think ink is so cute (ok but the hairstylist needs to make her hair less limp like lads it's tv) but i think to emphasize ink and pa a couple of things could have happened outside of casting and stronger acting:

- ink's style in relation to character

clothing being a bit darker

darker makeup — but not typical because every BAD GORL in the history of film and tv around the world wears eyeliner and a smokey eye lmao

can someone please put some volume in this girl's hair

first two points could indicate a more forceful but still playful personality kinda like ting ting from my engineer who is the cutest EVAH and weird but a girl you think is cool and would admire (catallena!!!) kinda like apple's char in DBK in terms of stronger affect (why...have i seen so many of these stupid shows)

- pa's character being cemented in her age/affect;

this is my fundamental issue i think and in terms of prowess because the actress is very small and skinny and she is the same age (give or take a year or 2) as most of the cast but the girl that plays ink (25) is older—acting wise and life wise it's not a big deal in a college setting but that does mean that milk [actress] is way out of that time of their lives

20 and 25 are huge leaps in differences of experience and ink feels more like her true age in comparison to the personage of pa. that's because of both their acting abilities and the writing of the characters

pa is younger than all of them but doesn't seem so bc of the age sameness and her (love's) ability. because of that they try and make her do the younger things—sniping at her bro, living with her bro (...can they not afford it? because that's stupid, they could be roommates but they need their own rooms as adult siblings because it cements independence...that's why if a family can afford it eventually or can make space they want their children to be seperate eventually. when my parents could, as horrendous as they are, they did that) changing from glasses to contacts which lol

maybe an alternative would be:

ink being less mature but still a sister-type figure in the confucianism sense present in asia for relationship formations [the usage of p' and a more gender specific is like in SK with unnie and hyung and the idea that there's always a relation between the societal identity IE i can call you mother if you are older even if you are not my mom]

i think if the reading of ink was more over the top like all the girls are enamored by her in the catallena sense but it grows for pa. i'm thinking a slow mo of blowy hair and ink kicking a dude's ass. the scene with the boys should have been tenser and stronger which is why in appearance i think ink having a darker palette would work and help with the chemistry and acting. not opposites attract but more rebel girl type thing THAT GIRL THINKS SHE'S THE QUEEN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD; I GOT NEWS FOR YOU: SHE IS

again that song is not romantic or sexual and is a feminist anthem about self-determination (i fucking cannot stand kathleen hanna she is garbage) but we could see how one could be drawn to her for that and that turns into love.

hero-worship turning to love, when done right and not predicated on pederasty, is always a great trope. one of my favs is always a person in power being pursued and rejecting the pursuer so the pursuer moves on but then the pursued realized they like them, they fucked up, so they have to get them back

more time and a consideration on how the audience would read it. for me it is beyond easy to equate their hand holding with romantic/sexual but that is, by no means and by clear evidence in culture, not the exact default even for men if they took their time we could see that evolution but it seems wedged in there with little lines here and there but we need more physical and emotional time

liking/romance/chem

the scene at the place was so cute but the only reason we know ink likes her for sure is the shrimp thing (which like i think it was my translation i aint understand but it was croot) but the music cue for the shrimp thing which is absolutely absurd to me! the previous scene or whatever with wai and him chasing her...they have more tension and chemistry than a build up to inkpa.

i genuinely was like oh they're gonna be together? bait and switch? which would have pissed people off but again i expect nothing from capitalism lol but im thinking: wow it could be a love triangle ish where ink doesn't want him to touch her—could have some romantic/sexual undertones like she likes her as her junior and thinks shes cute and likes touching her—but then they have something because that's how much more tension was introduced but pa wasn't even there.

and when she (ink) looks at wai, and again this is also due to acting ability, it could be read so many ways. jealousy over him liking her because she likes him, jealousy over her (pa) liking him because she likes her but it is not clear enough outside of our brains possibly thinking it within this world.

i think a part of that is also the show knowing people are like bla bla two girls and bla bla and demand (ish) then they do this shit and this is exactly my issue lol bc girl where is the story! u have two men with an establishment that pre-existed but ink also comes out of fucking nowhere and as someone a boy think is cute and admires. like pat me too but...

i just dont get it they should be spending way more time together not at ep 8 and in the photoshoot scene and the cake thing it could have been more clear but it was just flat. this is why we don't ask to do things just for the sake of "representation" when the genre can barely do that itself. this isnt' impossible and i know why people like it so im reiterating that once again but it should have gotten the same pacing that secondary couples get esp when secondary couples can overwhelm the primary couples—not in a bad way!—and people can be obsessed.

here the investment is severely lacking which is why we have to judge this shit the way it should be for anything else. i would complain about the lack of screentime as being robbed but i literally didn't expect anything else and it makes me resent that. the anticipation of the possibility of two women completely overrides any story or deeper investment just by virtue of them being there which is an issue in dramas for any gender but particularly when the whole world is so male-dominant yet marketed towards teen girls

and i hate to say this because i think people will majorly disagree but for me it's so vague. her reticence is "stay away from her" but not supported by anything else when it could be particularly underlined that she doesn't want pa to be bothered by stupid men who fall in love at first sight because theyre idiots ???

anyway i'm not into using heteronormativity as a catch all to encapsulate the hierarchy in the world because it is more than that. we exist because we exist and deserve to which means we have full lives not evolving around the concept of how much we may desire or want to be with others. my issue and i think this is my critique of queerness in culture esp when it so heavily ignores race and anti-blackness and so heavily centers phallicism, androcentrism, patriarchal dominance (power = sex and we should all just be having sex with each other bc that's what being queer is. but also just men thanks foucault! real good job tearing down capitalism there!) this is why identity only goes so far it is how we interact with the world. it's not that a gay man cannot write two women together but it's about the will and demand and time. that takes investment and the investment in the story is about how much it will be consumed and so capital dictates these women's interactions so we're operating under the same modus operandi

i really like kathleen hanna's manifesto [even though she's trash and racist and courtney love hates her (even tho courtney is also trash and racist and crazy but listen hole is HOLE!!)]

BECAUSE we are interested in creating non-heirarchical ways of being AND making music, friends, and scenes based on communication + understanding, instead of competition + good/bad categorizations. BECAUSE doing/reading/seeing/hearing cool things that validate and challenge us can help us gain the strength and sense of community that we need in order to figure out how bullshit like racism, able-bodieism, ageism, speciesism, classism, thinism, sexism, anti-semitism and heterosexism figures in our own lives. BECAUSE we see fostering and supporting girl scenes and girl artists of all kinds as integral to this process. BECAUSE we hate capitalism in all its forms and see our main goal as sharing information and staying alive, instead of making profits of being cool according to traditional standards. BECAUSE we are angry at a society that tells us Girl = Dumb, Girl = Bad, Girl = Weak. BECAUSE we are unwilling to let our real and valid anger be diffused and/or turned against us via the internalization of sexism as witnessed in girl/girl jealousism and self defeating girltype behaviors. BECAUSE I believe with my wholeheartmindbody that girls constitute a revolutionary soul force that can, and will change the world for real.

[arizonaconservativegal]

How important should physical attraction be in a relationship? I tried using Hinge after hearing good things about it and found almost exclusively extremely fat women. Most were also pronouns in bio too. I think I liked about 2 people after swiping for an hour. I posted about it elsewhere and was told off for being so superficial, but I feel like if I were a woman complaining about the quality of men there I'd be getting a lot of "yas queen slay"s. There were also very few who actually shared any interests with me, and the ones that did either were liberals or had kids. Frankly I'm getting up there so I don't know how much of my expectations I should be sacrificing. I'm working on building up skills for a career, but right now I'm not rich. I'm actively losing weight and I'm probably above average, but I still have a little fat. I'm a loyal guy who's worked out his psychological issues, but I'm also probably kind of boring and definitely not spontaneous. I don't have a college degree, and I know that that's important to a lot of women. I want an actual relationship, eventually ending in marriage. I basically want a woman who's fairly attractive to me, who shares some of my interests and politics, who's smart and loyal and calm, and who wants kids but doesn't have them. I don't know if I'm in a bad area for it (I'm in a pretty liberal area, in New York against the Canadian border), or if I'm expecting too much, or what, but I've had zero luck dating. I'm almost wondering if I should be looking to date someone younger, because my interests are more tech and internet related and I feel like younger women are more likely to share those, plus there's less of a chance that they already have kids, but I'm almost 30 and it seems like it would be weird dating someone less than 24 or so.

So, in short, am I expecting too much? While I was on tinder I definitely wound up swiping right about as much as I was swiping left, so I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I think I'm also above average in looks, too. Do I need to just up and move to a more conservative area, just to find someone? I'm not even a hardcore conservative, I'm an economic libertarian who just dislikes the current liberal culture. I mainly want someone who's not obsessed with race and gender and hates white people. Should I actually consider dating someone younger than me? I look quite young for my age, just a couple years ago I had people thinking I was still in high school, but I doubt they have the emotional maturity I'd want. And right now I'm looking for people who specifically mention similar interests, who are attractive, and who aren't openly liberal. Should I be just trying to talk to anyone I find attractive, and then see if they have anything similar, or should I be trying to weed out people like I have been?

To answer the last question first, there is nothing wrong with going on a first date just to find out whether or not the person is someone you'd like to see on a second date. First dates are for just starting to getting to know each other. You don't have to already know everything important about her before the first date. And if you learn something about her on the first date that makes you not want to go on a second, that's okay.

For your first question, physical attraction is important but we tend to worry too much about it at first. You need to not be repulsed by your partner's physical appearance. Anyone who says otherwise is lying for internet points. It's not superficial or selfish to want to be with someone you find attractive. But. I have always found that people we care about have a way of becoming more attractive to us as we grow to care for them. To be a little crude about it, she might be a solid 5 when you meet, but after you've gotten to know her a little and learned all the endearing things about her, you might look at her and see something you didn't see before.

As for pretty much everything else you asked, the honest answer is that I don't know. The best I can tell you is that it's okay to go on a date with a girl you're not sure about. It's a first date, not a marriage proposal. You might hit it off better than you thought. Or it might be an awkward or unpleasant evening but you never have to see her again and there's really only one way to find out which it's going to be.

(And yes you're definitely right about the double standard with guys having standards vs girls having standards)

[lais-a-ramos]

On Lovecraft Country and the way the narrative presents queerness

"No masters or kings when the ritual begins

There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene

Only then I am human

Only then I am clean"

Hozier, Take Me to Church

oh, boy...

i knew some of these deaths could happen in the finale, but i definetely wasn't prepared for any of this, wow.

i guess that, with the events of the finale, including atticus' death, there really is no point in getting the show renewed for a season 2, as as i hoped and wished before, because all of the conflicts that were set up were resolved. i mean, there's always the possibility of using time-travel to do a retcon and bring all the dead characters back, or, at least, two of the protagonists and the villain, but, maybe it would take too many alterations in the narrative, because it seems like the whole thing was planned for a mini-series.

so, now, all we have left is to do a breakdown of what worked and what didn't in lovecraft country's limited series run.

i think that, overall, the message of black ppl taking back the power of ancestry that was stripped from them by white supremacy and structural racism was well-done, and the symbolism was very well-crafted in the final takedown of the season's main villain, which was a representation of how the racism based on indifference born out of white privilege is almost as bad as the racism based on pure hate and despise, which is a valid message, considering the former is a bystander to the abuses and rise to power of the latter.

although i still find the timing was poorly chosen because, well, as of now, all over the world, it's not white ppl who dub themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and claim themselves to not be racist but refuse to act anti-racist that present an actual threat to our human rights, but literal, actual fascists and neo nazis...there are bigger fish to fry now...

but i digress...

on the final score, i guess that when it comes to queer/LGBTQ+ representation, the show fell actually felt real short for a product that crafted so well the race issues, proving that there is still a lot to go before we get to see intersecting identities being portrayed in media the same compex way they exist in the real world.

no, lovecraft country is not guilty of queerbaiting, unlike some of the same ppl in fandom that are the firsts to either erase the half of a couple that is a BIPOC or to deny a canon cis het biracial ship to hype up a fanon white wlw ship and other problematic stuff plenty of times in LGBTQ+ fandom spaces might say.

but that doesn't mean that the treatment of LGBTQ+ issues was satisfying or can be considered good rep, and it actually repeats some of the same tired tropes about queerness and blackness.

while we can say that the show did a relatively good job with montrose as an individual, the same can't be said of the other characters and the final messages.

like, for example, introducing a trans/non-binary indigenous, the Arawak two-spirt Yahima, only to kill them on the next episode was insensitive, to say the least.

while it's true that misha green apologized for the mistake, and said she and the writers tried to make a point that even oppressed groups are capable of oppression, the final score was that a trans/non-binary character was introduced as a plot-device and brutally murdered before having even a chance to properly develop.

in other words, used as a prop.

in a world in which trans ppl are brutally murdered at alarming rates, and most of the victims are BIPOC trans ppl, that is something that we can't let it slide just because the general message of the show was good for cis het black ppl.

the same can be said on the treatment of sammy in the narrative.

while it's true that montrose being aggressive and acting the way he did, pushing ppl he cared about away and shunning every chance of vulnerability due to internalized homophobia, toxic masculinity and misogyny, as this very interesting critique by amani marie hamed of nerdist pointed out, his characterization nonetheless falls into the same old stereotype in american culture of accusing black ppl of falling behind when it comes to queer acceptance and associating black masculinity with homophobia.

also, the author of the article says it better, but, overall, sammy's existence ends up being just another plot device, serving to say to the audience that the producers and writers know that queer ppl existed in the 50's, but, at the same time, repeating some of the same tropes as usual, like associating being queer with being clandestine and deviant instead of showing it as a natural thing that was perceived as deviant at the time, as we can see by that scene of sammy having a sexual encounter in the alley behind his bar.

the author even mentions that queer ppl overall had houses, and most of the encounters actually happened there, and that scene reinforces the idea that queerness is inherently animalistic.

the article also points out how sammy is mostly there just to be shutted out, first by montrose and latter even atticus, and, ends up being another prop to lift montrose to deuteragonist status, being rejected and abused by montrose solely to highlight tic's father journey with his personal issues that apparently he simply wrapped up in a span of 2 episodes.

the fact that sammy was a also a more feminine gay man, even participating in ball culture as a drag queen, and yet most of his appearences involved him being degraded or shut out or overall mistreated by montrose, even tic, and that scene in which atticus forgives montrose after he revealed he never acted on his homosexuality and cheated on tic's mom, even though it's implied she did cheat on him with his brother george, just reinforces the idea it's ok for black and brown men to be gay, as long as they are not THAT GAY™️.

the introduction of thomas in episode 1x09 only to be murdered in the riots is another example of how queerness seem to come with a price in this show if you act on it.

once again, a gay character was introduced in the narrative to further montrose's pain and trauma.

and his introduction was absolutely not necessary, because being a survivor of a massacre like the tulsa riots and a survivor of parental physical abuse is already was already enough for making tic and the audience begin to emphatize with montrose's pain, there was no need to kill another queer character just for that.

not to say we should agree with everything the nerdist article says, of course.

at times, it felt like the author was saying that addressing these issues in the black community is a problem on itself, and that is definetely not the solution.

but, when we consider the setting of a limited series with a plot-driven approach to the scripts, the way the topic is addressed ends up being superficial and rushed, and what could have been a delicate approach to a complicated man discovering his sexuality if the show was an on-going series, ends up being just a narrative built to put montrose in the spotlight in an attempt of getting a few emmy nominations for outstanding performances, and that's about it.

now, what really serves to cement the LGBTQ+/queer representation in lovecrat country as a disservice is the treatment of ruby, christina and their relationship.

i did a few metas explaining christina's and ruby's characterizations, including one i posted before the finale started explaining why ruby was so important to queer black and feminine-aligned nbs being a dark-skinned fat black queer woman discovering her sexuality and figuring out there was more to life than the social roles that were pushed into her, and how the parallels between her and christina, two different women separated by race and class but with the common feeling of being interrupted by social restraints that binded them, were a way for a character like ruby to be treated by the narrative the same way white women get to be treated in fantasy stories, as someone worthy of being courted and romanced as a light-skinned and thin black woman like her sister leti.

but with that finale, and the way the whole thing played out, with not only christina and ruby dead, but also with christina killing ruby, felt, ironically, like the very same trope that's been the norm for queer characters for a long time.

if we consider the tropes of the genre the show and the source material draw inspiration from, pulp fiction magazines, a medium that was very popular until the rise of the cinema and TV in the 50's and 60's that also served as an inspiration for them, then we know that in this medium some of the harmful tropes about queerness that exist until this day were particularly prevalent, including that of the queercoded villains.

to talk about this, i'm going to refer to this amazing article by tricia ennis on the history of queercoding for syfy wire.

first, a definition:

"queer coding, much as the name suggests, refers to a process by which characters in a piece of fictional media seem — or code — queer. this is usually determined by a series of characteristics that are traditionally associated with queerness, such as more effeminate presentations by male characters or more masculine ones from female characters. these characters seem somehow less than straight, and so we associate those characters with queerness — even if their sexual orientation is never a part of their story."

between the hays code in cinema going from 1934 to 1968, the comics code authority in the comics industry from 1954 to the early 21st century (with dc comics and archie comics being the last to break with it in 2011, mind you), the code of practices for television broadcasting from 1952 to 1983 and its predecessor for radio NAB code of ethics, the authors all over mass media couldn't approach the topic of queerness and portray openly and proud queer characters under the risk of being persecuted by the censors, and so, begin to hide queer chracters under the disguise of subtext.

and given the content creators couldn't show any form of positive queer/LGBTQ+ representation under the risk of being punished by the censors, the alternative they found was to portray the queer characters as the villains or antagonists or degenerates, and punish them with death.

the syfy wire article says it better than i ever could:

"even dangerous LGBTQ tropes rose out of this time period, as the depictions of pulp noir femme fatales and other deadly women rose in popularity. these women were usually written as promiscuous and sexually devious, both with men and sometimes with women. they were also evil and usually met their end as a result of their sins. While depictions of LGBTQ characters were frowned upon, depictions of them in this specifically negative light were not. you were not endorsing an “alternative lifestyle” if your gay characters always met an untimely demise. Instead, they were merely paying for their poor choices. this trope would eventually give way to what we now refer to as 'Bury Your Gays.' "

and the thing is, all those censorship laws are over by now, but the tropes/clichés that arised on that era are still prevalent in pop culture 'till this day, consumed by the audiences and reproduced by content creators, in the industry or in fan spaces, whether they are aware of said trope/clichés or not.

now, that is where ruby, christina and their affair on the show enter.

to explain how problematic and harmful the way these characters have been portrayed is, and what kind of message it sends about black queerness, i first have to explain christina's function on the story.

christina, as a character, was basically the texbook pulp noir femme-fatale, checking most of the boxes of the tv tropes description of the trope, from the "red equals evil and sin" imagery to being a wild card, that character who changes sides according to their own desires and individualistic goals.

in her specific case, helping the white supremacists and the black heroes alike in her pursue for unlimited power to protect herself from the oppression that comes with being a white woman, particularly a wealthy one, in which the very same presumption of innocence that gives them privilege over BIPOC is used to infantilize them and strip them from their agency, putting their bodies and choices under the tutelage of cis het white men.

so, her function on the show was basically to manipulate the characters on the two sides alike.

and that is where the problems in queer representation come in, because, to manipulate them, she acts as a sensual seductress.

and what does the script uses to highlight that this is a character willing to go to the most immoral places to achieve her goals? it makes christina a sexually fluid and gender fluid character.

that is basically playing a move straight from the hays code era.

not only does the show plays christina's sexual and gender fluidity as her being "freaky" and a proof of her deviant nature, but it makes her seduction of ruby as a central part of the scheme that positions her as the main villain of the show.

this portrayal of christina as a textbook femme-fatale with a touch of white feminism is already very problematic on its own, especially when we consider her death and how brutal it was, because, yes, while it's true she is privileged because she is white and wealthy, she is still a woman and a queer one at that, and giving her the same traditional treatment for femme-fatales in pulp fiction ends up reinforcing harmful stereotypes about gender and sexuality.

but, when we consider what it means for ruby as a character, it gets WAY worse.

ruby is a character that's been shown to feel very frustrated about the ways in which societal structures of power interfere in her life, not only on a professional level, but even on a personal level as well, making her feel "interrupted".

dealing with the same issues that all black women and feminine-aligned nbs who don't fit into the eurocentric standards of femininity and of beauty do, and not matching the criteria for being hypersexualized by society as the black women considered conventionally pretty -- with thin bodies like the white women or hourglass body frames, being light-skinned and so on --, ruby has her humanity stripped from her because everyone expects her to be stronger than it's humanly possible.

everyone seems to expect something of her at home, her younger sister took advantage of her money for years, and not only all of her goals in the professional realm seem to be frustrated by social structures of oppression, but even her relationship goals as well, given that most of the men that she gets involved with, whether they are black or white, seem to believe they have the right to abandon her and treat her like trash because she doesn't feel a thing and is "strong" enough.

ruby feels frustrated and tired, and she has every single right to do so, because, as what happens to most black women and feminine-aligned nbs, she is disrespected and disregarded by everyone, white and black alike.

so, when christina comes in with an offer of improving ruby's life with magic, of course she takes the opportunity.

and it seemed like the show was willing to deal with the moral complexities of christina's shapeshifting potion and validating ruby's feelings, or at least, sort of validating.

but, by killing her at the end, it just played out as if ruby's feelings meant she was merely a traitor to the race, and not a woman who was tired of feeling frustrated with all of these impossible obstacles society sets for black women and feminine-aligned nbs, especially dark-skinned and fat ones like her, and justified in her anger and frustration.

she did everything right and accomplished nothing, and, when she finally decided to rebel and focus on herself for a change, she met her demise.

but that is just the tip of iceberg, really.

what makes this situation with ruby so frustrating is the fact that, when the show presented christina's queerness as another sign she was "on the wrong side of the tracks" and a villian that should be defeated by the black heroes, which consist in a family, the narrative is implying that a person has to choose between their queerness, on one side, and their blackness and community on the other.

of course, one might argue that the fact montrose was turned into a gay man himself in the adaptation prevents this from happening. but, when we consider montrose was forgiven by tic only after reinforcing he never did cheated on dora and acted on his queerness and lived his gayness, when he really had every single right to do so, especially because it's implied dora slept with his brother george and the three of them knew she was just montrose's beard, then we have the message that it's ok to be queer as long as you don't act on your queerness at all.

there is a part in the review for nerdist that i mentioned above, in which the author says that one of the book's best qualities was that "the source material also illustrates the importance of family and community ties between Black protagonists", and that the TV show ruins it when it "introduces abuse, alcoholism, and family dysfunction, and strips Black characters of their own magic."

that is a part of the article, published in october 14 2020, that now no longer makes sense after the finale, because that message is there.

but, the actual problem is that the ideas of family and community shouldn't be taken for granted bc they are always under political dispute, and are oftenly used to reinforce backward messages when it comes to gender and sexuality, serving as a tool for the control of the bodies and authonomy of ppl of various marginalized groups and intersecctions, including women, BIPOC and queer ppl alike.

while these things are not inherently good or bad, and they are also part of the culture and identity for plenty of BIPOC ethnical identities, the concepts of family and community are usually weaponized by conservatives and used to justify things like queerphobia and the restrictions over reproductive rights.

queer ppl in all walks of life and skin colors all over the world have to deal with plenty of conflicts about coming out because, by deciding to live their own truth, they can never know for sure whether coming out will put them at odds with their families and community until they dare to do so.

so, ruby's dillemma for not knowing what to choose, her family or a life with christina, plays out as the type of experience queer ppl have to deal on a daily basis, and when we consider the intersection with race/ethnicity, it gets even more cruel because our gender identities and sexual/romantic/aesthetic orientations, that are natural parts of us, make us being invisibilized and silenced in our own cultures and feel like we have to give up on our own communities in order to be able to live our queerness.

there are few things more gut-wrenching than that feeling of fear that you might be disowned by your family and relatives and your community -- whether is it a neighbourhood, a village, a small town etc -- because a part of yourself is considered at odds with your heritage.

and when we consider all the christian imagery in the show, the final result is a really troubling one.

while it's true that being christian and believing in god doesn't authomatically makes anyone a bigot (i actually still retain some of the beliefs i was raised into as a catholic latin-american), it's also true that now, more than ever, we can't ignore science, including history.

the entire way in which they referred to magic as a devil's work was very troubling and evocates the same discriminative rethoric that white european colonizers used to justify the destruction of the ancient old religions and beliefs of BIPOC in their own homeland, the ancient culture of our ancestors, and also the oppression of peasant women in europe.

while we can't generalize, given each culture had its own particularities, there's an agreement in the scientific community that, overall, the cultures of the first nations and indigenous folks from the american continent, the african continent, the asian continent and oceania/pacific islands were far more accepting of different manifestations of queerness.

that means that queerphobia was part of the colonial project, once the traditional family values of christianity were used as a tool for the white colonizers to regulate the bodies and sexuality of the colonized and keep them under control.

and that is why the association of these ideals of family and community as inherent to blackness ends up being problematic, because we can't discuss racism without discussing colonization, and we can't discuss colonization without considering the ways in which queerphobia and religion were used as tools of colonial oppression.

the worst part is that, when it comes to ruby, the producers and writers really didn't need to do kill her at all.

and while the show did right in not showing how christina killed ruby, sparing the audience from watching another black body being brutalized, it's also true they didn't have to kill the character to get her out of the way from the final confrontation between christina and tic's family.

they literally went and changed her background from her book counterpart and made the woman a musician, and a blueswoman at that.

all they needed was to have her share a goodbye scene with christina the same way she had with leti, saying that she wanted to be with christina but couldn't fight her family and friends like that, grab a copy from the safe travel negro guide and set off in a bus to travel all over the U.S., singing very sad blues songs about falling in love with a white devil once.

that's all the producers and writers needed, to use the "sent in a bus" trope.

but the choice was to portray ruby as a character facing the consequences of following her desires , which ends up feeling like a punishment for a dark-skinned and fat queer black woman for daring to question the position society has placed her because of who she is.

this is in no way an attempt to "cancel" the producers or the writers, because a) their work is still important as a team of mostly black creators and b) canceling doesn't seem to have significant consequences, and seems to lead only to more social media wars than anything else.

but now that it finally seems diversity is getting more space in media, this type of discussion gets more important.

there is a slow increase on more representation of queer/LGBTQ+ characters in media and more productions involving queer/LGBTQ+ creatives, but, most of the time, the characters and are white, or, when there are biracial couples, the characters of color are just token minorities, and the same happens with the creatives involved in the production.

there is a slow increase in BIPOC characters representation in media and more productions involving BIPOC as creatives, but, most of the time, the characters are cis heterosexual, and the same happens with the creatives involved in the production.

but, for pop culture and media to be truly diverse, there has to be more space for the narratives of ppl that exist and belong to the two groups to raise our voices and be heard, whether is it in the entertainment industry, society at large or even in fandom spaces.

because she shouldn't be forced to pick between one identity over the other.

our existences shouldn't be interrupted just because society doesn't know how to deal with them.

and if that make us sinners, then so be it.

[xhxhxhx]

Rick Perlstein, Reaganland (Simon & Schuster, 2020):

AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, a separate anti-liberal backlash was taking root. It was spurred by summer after summer of race riots, and its political base was not business but middle-class homeowners, who blamed civil rights and the War on Poverty for a civilization-threatening breakdown in law and order. Business was largely on the liberal side of this issue—like the author of a 1966 article in the Harvard Business Review predicting “riots and arson and spreading slums” if “the businessman does not accept his rightful role as leader in the push for the goals of the ‘Great Society’ (or whatever tag he wants to give it).”

No, business’s backlash, its emergence as a [class for itself], came a little bit later, in response to a new, and different, sort of liberalism—one whose buzzwords were “environmentalism” and “consumerism,” and which, unlike Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, placed corporate power squarely in its sights.

Date its origin to the summer of 1967. Around the same time Congress was responding to middle-class constituent anger over black riots by voting down a modest bill funding rodent control in the slums, a remarkable hearing was held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, chaired by Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington State. Magnuson had been approached by a Seattle physician who described a “chronic, unrelenting procession of burned and scarred children” in his work at Seattle Children’s Hospital, caused by the sort of flammable fabrics that had supposedly been outlawed by the Flammable Fabrics Act of 1953. That law, however, had been written by industry lobbyists. Back then, Commerce Committee members were classed by what industry they served: “textile senators,” “trucking senators,” “railroad senators,” “tobacco senators” (the leading tobacco senator was the former president of the Tobacco Institute). They sponsored protectionist laws written by their benefactors—like the Wool Products Labeling Act, which banned manufacturers from selling a product as wool if it contained a single strand of recycled or synthetic fiber; or bills fixing prices for legacy companies. The process was so corrupt that when Chairman Magnuson hired a young lawyer in 1964 named Michael Pertschuk to run the committee’s portfolio of consumer products legislation, the fellow he replaced congratulated him on all the price-fixed products, from audio equipment to toasters, that he soon would be getting for free.

This all would soon be a thing of the past.

Magnuson had been a fisheries senator and an aviation senator. After almost losing his seat in 1962, however, he reinvented himself aggressively as a new kind of liberal legislative entrepreneur: a consumerist senator. He put Pertschuk to work toughening up the limp Flammable Fabrics Act. A textile industry lobbyist replied “blood would run in the halls of Congress” before his industry let it pass. But the hearings Pertschuk staged in July of 1967 were a masterpiece of legislative melodrama. The Seattle doctor testified: “In all honesty, I must say I do not consider it a triumph when the life of a severely burned child is saved.… Death may be more merciful.” A beloved CBS News commentator told the story of his eleven-year-old daughter, burned nearly to death when a cotton blouse that met federal safety standards combusted when a match was dropped on it. A representative of the Cotton Textile Council boasted of the “admirable” results produced by its standards committee. The square-jawed and stentorian Magnuson replied:

“How often does your standards committee meet?”

“Regularly, Senator.”

How often, Magnuson followed up, before they’d received his recent letter warning them of impending congressional action?

“Ten years,” the lobbyist admitted.

The amendments passed the committee unanimously, then both houses, virtually unchanged. President Johnson signed the bill with Magnuson by his side. The following day he signed the first update to meat inspection law since the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, with Upton Sinclair, the novelist whose 1905 exposé The Jungle had inspired it, standing next to him. A landmark “truth in lending” bill went to conference six weeks later. The former senator Paul Douglas, a New Deal economist who had lost his seat in 1966 largely because white Chicago factory workers turned their back on him because of his advocacy for a failed bill outlawing housing discrimination, had been pressing for it since the 1950s, but was defeated in the Finance Committee session after session. Now, however, it passed the committee unanimously.

The floodgates opened: to laws fighting deceptive practices by door-to-door salesmen and moving companies, outlawing hazardous radiation from electronics equipment, closing gaps in poultry and fish inspection, demanding accuracy in product warranties, regulating cigarettes. “Consumer Interests: Legislative Derby Has Begun,” one Midwestern newspaper reported early in 1968. That headline appeared just as Congress voted to outlaw housing discrimination in a desperate response to the riots following the April 4, 1968, assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The version that passed, however, weaker than one killed in 1966, added near-police-state provisions limiting militant blacks’ freedom to travel. Riots had burned down Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. “Consumerism” sprung forth phoenix-like from the ashes.

Politicians discovered that scourging industry greed was the smart political play. It certainly was for Magnuson, who glided to reelection in 1970 with ads that bragged, “There’s a law that forced Detroit to make cars safer—Senator Magnuson’s law. There’s a law that keeps the gas pipelines under your house from blowing up—Senator Magnuson’s law. There’s a law that makes food labels tell the truth—Senator Magnuson’s law. Keep the big boys honest; let’s keep Maggie in the Senate.”

It heralded a remarkable shift in public opinion. In 1966, 55 percent of Americans had a “great deal of confidence in the leaders of major companies.” Five years later, the percentage was 27 percent. Between 1968 and 1970, the portion believing “business tries to strike a fair balance between profits and the interest of the public” fell from 70 percent to 33 percent. Wrote pollster Lou Harris, “People have come to be skeptical about American ‘know-how,’ worried that it might pollute, contaminate, poison, or even kill them.”

[...]

IDEALISTIC YOUNG LAWYERS FLOCKED TO the organizations [Ralph] Nader began forming [in the late 1960s]. The first product of these “Nader’s Raiders” was a 185-page report on the Federal Trade Commission, a notoriously toothless regulatory body that took, on average, four years to investigate every complaint, punishing the guilty with unenforceable orders to cease and desist. The monograph was couriered to 150 key journalists out of the back of a Raider’s Volkswagen. It called the FTC a “self-parody of bureaucracy, fat with cronyism, torpid through inbreeding unusual even for Washington, manipulated by the agents of commercial predators, impervious to government or citizen monitoring,” ridden with “alcoholism, spectacular lassitude, and office absenteeism.”

By then the president was Richard Nixon, who had to accede to the new anti-corporate mood just to maintain political credibility. He ordered up his own FTC investigation. It arrived at similar conclusions. So Nixon replaced the FTC director with the shrewdest bureaucrat in his administration, Caspar “Cap the Knife” Weinberger, who roared out of the starting gate with actions against dubious advertising claims of such blue-chip products as Hi-C, Listerine, Wonder Bread, and McDonald’s.

Nixon then signed a landmark mine safety law and the National Environmental Policy Act, establishing the first new independent federal regulatory agency since 1938, then added another with a law authorizing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That project was inherited from the Johnson administration, and at first, Nixon’s version was so mild that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed it. But the “creature that ultimately stomped out of Congress,” a historian recounted, was a “Frankenstein of Chamber members’ nightmares.” Federal agents had never had the authority to inspect individual businesses for health and safety violations. OSHA gave them the power to do it without warrants, then levy hefty fines with no avenue for appeal. Richard Nixon didn’t dare veto it.

Nor did he veto tough amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1963 that included something nearly unprecedented in previous environmental legislation: specific deadlines for compliance. It also enjoined the new EPA from considering costs in establishing ambient air standards—inspiring Robert Griffin, a Republican automotive senator from Michigan, to snarl that the 1975 deadline for limiting auto exhaust pollutants “holds a gun to the head of the American automobile industry in a very dangerous game of roulette.” The technology to implement the standards, he complained, did not exist. Democrat Edmund Muskie of Maine, the leader of senate environmentalists, responded, “This deadline is based not, I repeat, not, on economic and technological feasibility, but on considerations of public health.… Detroit has told the nation that Americans cannot live without the automobile. This legislation would tell Detroit that if this is the case, then they must make an automobile with which the American people can live.” The version that passed the Senate 73–2 was stronger than what had been debated in any hearing. A cowed GM lobbyist told the National Journal that “the atmosphere was such that offering amendments seemed pointless,” and that “I wouldn’t think of asking anybody to vote against the bill.”

The Senate Commerce Committee, that former redoubt of trucking senators, railroad senators, textile senators, and tobacco senators, became a regulator’s paradise. At confirmation hearings for a new FTC head, Frank Moss congratulated the agency for having “stretched its powers to provide a credible countervailing public force to the enormous economic and political power of huge corporate conglomerates which today dominate American enterprise. That is as it should be.” Then one of Moss’s conservative colleagues, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, asked the nominee to “become a real zealot in terms of consumer affairs,” tough enough that “these big businesspeople will complain.”

In 1971, Webster’s added the word consumerism to its Third New International Dictionary. A book called America, Inc.: Who Owns and Operates the United States? coauthored by the Washington Post’s consumer reporter and original Nader champion Morton Mintz rode the bestseller list for months. Children begged at bedtime to hear Dr. Seuss’s new book The Lorax, in which a pitiless capitalist “biggers” his business by harvesting every last Truffula tree, crying triumphantly, “Business is business and business must grow!” and leaving behind a barren hellscape. Gore Vidal published a cover article in Esquire touting Nader for president, and 78 percent of columnist Mike Royko’s readers who sent back a questionnaire he published said they wanted him as the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Another new independent regulatory agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was born. Congress passed bills requiring childproof packaging for poisonous substances, killing federal subsidies for a supersonic transport plane, restricting lead in house paint, and establishing safety standards for recreational boats. Nixon signed them—not because he was a closet liberal, but because, as his aide Bryce Harlow, a former lobbyist for Procter & Gamble, delicately explained to the American Advertising Federation, though “President Nixon profoundly respects the critical contribution made by industry to the vitality and strength of the American economy, if this respect were to over-influence his actions, I am certain that the fall of 1972 would bring a new and hostile team to the White House.”

Nader had by then established a permanent presence in the capital, based in a decrepit mansion which had been slated for demolition in the down-market Dupont Circle neighborhood, where, amid a shambles of borrowed third-hand furniture and wooden fruit crates stuffed with books and files, staggeringly devoted young Ivy League–trained Nader’s Raiders institutionalized their hero’s agenda. The neighborhood was pocked with similar offices. Common Cause, Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Nader’s own Public Citizen, Environmental Action, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Consumer Federation of America were all established in 1969 or 1970. Nader started six new organizations in 1971 alone, including Public Citizen, a membership group that raised more than $1 million from sixty-two thousand donors in its first year.

That was another new pattern. Throughout the seventies, pundits cast their eye on declining election turnout and agonized over voter apathy. But apathy at the polls did not extend to joining consumer and environmental organizations, whose memberships exploded, thanks in part to the same computer-based direct mail technology that Richard Viguerie employed. Nearly one hundred thousand households contributed at least $70 to not one, not two, but three progressive membership groups. Major foundations pitched in, too. Thanks to the shower of cash—and because most new consumer and environmental laws awarded attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs who sued to enforce them—lawsuits against corporations increased exponentially.

George McGovern considered Nader as his running mate. (He replied, “I’m an advocate for justice and that doesn’t mix with the needs of politics.”) Nixon vetoed the 1972 Clean Water Act, for its “staggering, budget-wrecking” $24 billion cost—but his veto was overridden with considerable Republican votes. In October, he signed a law establishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the third new regulatory agency in three years.

Then, however, following his landslide reelection, he proposed a radical right-wing budget that Newsweek described as “one of the most significant American political documents since the dawning of the New Deal,” intended to “pull the government back from the proliferating social concerns of the years from Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson.” Thanks to Watergate, he never got the chance. Senator Sam Ervin’s televised hearings had reverberated with accounts of briefcases full of corporate cash laundered through the Mexican subsidiaries of blue-chip firms like American Airlines, Goodyear, and 3M. In the midst of it came the first energy crisis, which a majority of Americans—and some senators—believed the big energy companies had cooked up to line their pockets. Pollster Daniel Yankelovich found that 70 percent of Americans believed big business controlled government through illegal bribes. And that was before spectacular revelations, following Nixon’s resignation, that the same slush funds companies maintained to bribe Nixon were also used to pay off foreign officials. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s chief of enforcement was gobsmacked. “Until two or three years ago,” he said, “I genuinely thought the conduct of business… was generally rising. But what can you say about the revelations of the last couple or three years?”

Under President Ford, government checks on corporate power expanded yet further. One of the first laws he signed was the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which strictly enforced the pension promises companies made to their employees, placing thousands of company’s books under federal scrutiny for the first time. In 1975 he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, a landmark law demanding that every American car manufacturer achieve a “Corporate Average Fuel Economy,” or CAFE, of eighteen miles per gallon by the 1978 model year. That meant every manufacturer had to redesign every car on the drawing boards. An automotive think tank estimated that it would cost manufacturers $60 billion to $80 billion, virtually their entire store of capital assets, and made the companies fear for their very survival. A group of automotive lobbyists approached the chief of staff of Edmund Muskie’s environmental subcommittee, Leon Billings, with a memo suggesting some ideas on the bill. Billings fashioned a paper airplane out of the document and sailed it straight over their heads.

This passage made me change my mind about Richard Nixon.

[856764864568]

The prince gave her a curious look

But will it be said. The prince gave her a curious look. If you plough through the marketing jargon, Boost is based on a plastic developed by chemical company BASF. It was down to fours required off each of the balls left.. In Lhazar I slew two of my own serjeants for plotting to steal the gems and gold plate my queen had entrusted to me as gifts for the Lamb Men. His .484 OBP is 4th in the league. The power comes from your abdominal muscles. There all the field-slaves lived and worked. Nor are planters indifferent to the comfort of their gray-headed slaves. Some reported seeing him north of the river, above the grass of the Dothraki sea. Even haibike e mtb 2020 full court. I walk up and down, up and down, here, always alone, always alone, always thinking; thoughts come rushing like a whirlwind! It’s so horrible! One thing I’ve thought of, Vanya; couldn’t you get to know her? You know the countess admired your novel (you said so yourself at the time). It is equipped with a number of accessories including a high speed rotating spindle (2,500rpm), mini collet chuck holder and associated mini collet chuck set (for clamping of electrodes from 0.2 to 2.0mm) together with a microscope for electrode and ceramic guide alignment. “Cockles and mussels and clams,” Cat cried as he went past, “oysters and prawns and fat green mussels.” She even smiled at him. I had one pair of shoes and everything was hand me down. Why do you look at one another? No doubt you’re thinking: here they’ve caught him at once and he hasn’t a grain of will. But, in the actual condition of things, it must be so. Her father, too.”. Innovative techniques of using paper in The Intimate Universe and Pure Pulp trigger a deep sense of appreciation of the diverse materiality in artistic portrayal.. It appeared that the prisoner commenced the punishment of the deceased in the morning, and that it was continued throughout the day: and that the deceased died in the presence of the prisoner, and one of his slaves, and one of the witnesses, whilst the punishment was still progressing... Imagine all that Medici money washing around Bank Medici in King William Street: no need for the CBA or NAB, the submarines not required, Rundle Street in a Renaissance, the new Royal Adelaide already operating around the clock. When he turned away she stealthily nodded to me.. In the one [case], the end in view is the happiness of the youth, born to equal rights with that governor, on whom the duty devolves of training donna di porto pim una storia riassunto the young to usefulness, in chanel ágynemű a station which he is afterwards to assume among freemen. Dany gave her wild children one last lingering look. Katya expressed it very well this morning. I will not feel remorse for something I didn't do. I'm pleased with the outcome.". The story behind the invention was two product developers working for Salomon in France designed a shoe for downhill running with maximum cushioning," said Menosky. The scales there were just as tough as those along a dragon’s back and flanks. On the cog, alas, everyone was just who they appeared to be, no one was particularly congenial, and only the red Mens JORDAN Hoodie priest papuci de casa din pasla was interesting. Airbus opted for the double decker A380 to distinguish itself in the world largest aviation hubs, but Boeing decided to focus its energies instead on smaller aircraft. In Lufkin, Texas, near Lackland Air Force Base where military working dogs are initially trained, also stars Lauren Graham and Thomas Haden Church as Justin parents. COLORADO SPRINGS Cole Gunner scored a career adidas eqt rose gold high four goals to led Air Force to a 10 3 win biciclete rusesti vechi over AIC in game two of a best of three Atlantic Hockey playoff series, Saturday, March 7, at the Cadet Ice Arena. Gibran Essa and Crawford Kennedy were champions, beating Pace Academy in the semifinals and Liberal Arts and Sciences in the finals Max Abramson and Aly Shakoor were semifinalists. But not all. "The result is a film that starts off as a solid, workmanlike exercise in horror, but it can quite keep that energy through to the end. “You saw how we went through the wildlings.” Ser Justin pushed back a lock of flaxen hair. I never liked a pair of shoes that I could not effectively use to run (not that I'm paranoid, but sometimes you just need to run). Jojen’s lips were blue, Meera’s cheeks dark red. “Might that be where whores go?” Tyrion could oakley m frame ice iridium not seem to recall the Valyrian word for whore, and in any case it was too late.. According to meteorologists, the extreme conditions were caused by a low pressure storm that set up over Hudson Bay in Canada. “Great queen,” declared Reznak mo Reznak, “you are so radiant today I fear to look on you.” The seneschal wore a tokar of maroon silk with a golden fringe. IIRC, you're still running UT2K4 as a 32 bit game on a 64 bit OS, right? Only the drivers are 64 bit enabled.Overall, though, great article. I’ve horno teka hc 610 me blanco been crying all night. When we were left alone I told her I had a hundred and fifty roubles for her in case of need. Stuart Blackton of Vitagraph spoke of the need for military preparation to protect US territories and recited a pro war poem whose final words were "So fire your forges and dam the bills/For the wings of peace must have iron quills." When Wilson addressed the audience that night, he kept his remarks limited to vague statements about truth in film storytelling. And each airman will have an opportunity to say thank you as well. Again, these teachers tell them that they should search the Scriptures most earnestly, diligently and continually, at the same time declaring that it is not their intention to interfere with the laws which forbid their being taught to read. This lack of mobility can lead to lack of independence, low self confidence and self esteem, depression, and in some cases these issues can lead to loss of employment and therefore detrimental financial implications.. He was very tall, very thin, so long-legged that it was a wonder his feet did not drag along the ground. It can put them in bed for four to six weeks, says LeCorgne. Admitting that God has cursed both the Jewish race and the descendants of Ham, He is able to fulfil His purpose, though the “rest of mankind” should in all things act up to the papuci de casa din pasla benevolent precepts of the “Divine law.” Man may very safely cultivate the highest principles of the Christian dispensation, and leave God to work out the fulfilment of His curse.. She took off her helm and pushed back her sweat-soaked hair. You have been so exasperated by his thoughtless behaviour. Charles, a mob of such men as only slavery could raise attacked the house to take his life. Griffith 1915 Birth of a Nation. "So she'd sit there in her rocking chair, with those chores of quilting and crocheting, and kept this book on top of the radio with her pen," Wiseman recalls. Policymakers worldwide have been stymied in their effort to reach a global agreement on reducing fossil fuel emissions. The 6 8 Phillips grad, who has come back from major heart surgery, totalled 29 points, 27 rebounds and 15 blocks in two wins.