-
-
100040Reblogging this, for example, is more important important than tweeting it.
(Source: stupiddmol, via something-scarlett)
-
If I can attempt an analogy, consider how gays have been portrayed in popular media over the years.
Stage One treated them as targets for mockery; gays were silly, comic-relief characters to be made fun of.
In Stage Two, gays were recognized as a minority group being denied their rights and became saintly; portrayals of gays in the media were universally positive, with every gay character being a beacon of constructive, virtuous enlightenment without a blemish.
By Stage Three, gay characters become just like everybody else. They can be complex, flawed, and deeply misguided in their beliefs because they’re no better and no worse than any other type of character.
In my view, feminism is stuck in Stage Two: pretending that the ‘oppressed minority’ is perfect and reacting with outrage when anyone makes a Stage Three argument that maybe, just maybe, women might have flaws and failings of their own.
Feminists have recognized a problem and reacted in the predictably laudatory and over-protective way to the poor, benighted female demographic–by praising them to the skies and hotly attacking anyone who offers a more nuanced perspective. Egalitarians have moved beyond that primitive level of awareness. Egalitarian > feminist.
69
-
I’ve told the kids in the ghettos that violence won’t solve their problems, but then they ask me, and rightly so; “Why does the government use massive doses of violence to bring about the change it wants in the world?” After this I knew that I could no longer speak against the violence in the ghettos without also speaking against the violence of my government
—13933Martin Luther King Jr. (via loveinfamine)
The Martin Luther King Jr. White people never quote
(via youngblackandvegan)
You’re suggesting that MLK is the kind of person we should agree with everything about? And also, I fail to see how pacifism solves things like the current crisis in Syria. The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. Violence is sometimes necessary and speaking out against it uniformly is naive. Even Jesus used violence against the money changers in the temple. It has its uses.
(via ikenbot)
-
46623
teachers who call on students who obviously don’t know the answer are the biggest dicks in the world because they’re flat out humiliating the kid in front of all their peers
No, they’re not. You’ve fundamentally misunderstood. Those teachers are trying to get the child to engage with the question when they are being lazy. A teacher won’t humiliate a child who just genuinely doesn’t understand.
(via batgod)
-
435Erm… MLK? Ghandi? Telemachus? These people certainly didn’t achieve their aims with violence, and while they all ultimately were killed for their beliefs, it was the moral response to their deaths which lead to the change they sought. Ghandi went to the British government and appealed his case there. MLK stood and made speeches. Telemachus stood in the middle of a gladiatorial combat arena and pleaded. Shakur is just plain wrong here. Plenty of people have accomplished great liberations by simply making the point and having many others make it with them, loudly and clearly. The pen, and the larynx, are far mightier than the sword.
(Source: kemetically-afrolatino, via ikenbot)
-
this is female privilege: Generic 'you'. →
73I get so sick of privileged groups taking shit personally.
WHEN SOMEONE SAYS “I hate white people” OR “I hate cis-het people” OR “I hate mentally/physically able-bodied people” OR “I hate rich people” OR “I hate men”.
THIS IS NOT.
A PERSONAL ATTACK.
IT IS AN EXPRESSION FROM AN OPPRESSED PERSON OF AN OPPRESSED GROUP ABOUT WHAT THE OPPRESSING GROUP DOES.
IT IS NOT “Oh my god I hate that guy Matt Bob Smith who is cis-het, white and rich. Oh my god he oppresses me so much look at him benefiting from his privilege”.
STOP. THINKING. THAT.
UGH. UGH. UGH.
They take it personally, because you are talking about white PEOPLE, cis-het PEOPLE and men (who are PEOPLE). You are literally saying that you detest, abhor. loathe, those PEOPLE when you aren’t actually referring to the people, but the SYSTEM. By saying ‘I hate men’ you are inciting hate against MEN instead of directing your hate toward the patriarchy, misogyny and sexism! Those are the things causing your problems, and guess what? PEOPLE OF ALL GENDERS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE PROBLEMS.
You hate the system, and the fact that those people are the perceived beneficiaries of the system. So quit blaming the people.
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
I like this.
I’ve never seen someone explain how I’m an oppressor just because I was born with a penis and don’t want to remove it.
Most days.
Like you would say, PSA: Being part of a generally privileged group does not mean any given person in that group is privileged over any other given person.
Just imagine if this principle was applied to any other group. “Oh, when I say I hate [insert non-white racial group here] it’s not a personal attack!” No, its just an expression of a poorly thought through opinion that directly references actual people. And why would that hurt them…
-
238
Feminism
The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
(via bespectaclednerd)
-
474
i wish people would stop giving ‘social justice blogging’ such a negative connotation. sure, there are SJers who are unnecessarily rude assholes, but that goes for any group of people. stop confusing ‘rude’ with ‘making you uncomfortable because they called you out on your shit.’ thank you.
This, billions and billions of times.
It’s not that they are rude. It’s that many of them are actively looking for things that are wrong. As a result, they cover things which no one would have found offensive unless they were told to find it offensive. It’s like those incidents in Britain where local councils asked one of their office employees to remove their collection of little pig ornaments from their desk, for fear it would offend Muslims. Of course, Muslims who commented on this said they couldn’t care less if someone owned/displayed pig ornaments in the workplace, and that they found it offensive that someone else believed that Muslims were so fragile that they required everyone to obey the rules that they set for their own life. In other words, it becomes the person who seeks out to fight offence who is themselves more offensive. SJ bloggers are often so self righteous and so convinced of their superiority that they will actively go out of their way to ignore counter arguments to their positions, preferring instead to exist within echo chambers. If their kind of behaviour was put forward in the name of almost any other ideology, it would not be tolerated.
(Source: enjolrys)
-
What people don’t understand is when we say “Teach men not to rape,” we’re not talking about telling them not to jump out of the bushes in a ski mask and grab the nearest female. We’re talking about the way we teach boys that masculinity is measured by power over others, and that they aren’t men unless they “get some.” We’re talking about teaching men (and women) that it’s not okay to laugh at jokes about rape and abuse. We’re talking about telling men that a lack of “No” doesn’t mean “Yes,” that if a woman is too drunk to consent they shouldn’t touch her, that dating someone - or even being married to someone - does not mean automatic consent. We’re talking about teaching boys to pay attention to the girl they’re with, and if she looks uncomfortable to stop and ask if she’s okay, because sometimes girls don’t know how to say stop in a situation like that. We’re talking about how women have the right to change their mind. Even if she’s been saying yes all night, if she says no, that’s it. It’s over. That’s what we mean when we say “Teach men not to rape.
—35021Kalitena on Facebook (via oldloveinyoungbodies)
Now only if people actually said any of this, instead of ‘teach men not to rape’, there would be progress.
If there was a meme going around along the lines of ‘get consent and set boundaries before you get hot and heavy, drunk or high, because it’s healthy!’ there would be progress… but instead there’s ‘teach men not to rape’, and apparently (some of the) people who say ‘teach men not to rape’ want everyone else to assume they mean the best of all possible things, without actually making their position clear and/or cogent. without doing any work for themselves. People Should Just Understand Thier Real Position. What morons.Of course, actual progress would end up revealing that women are as likely to violate consent as men:
But that would degrade claim of women being morally superior. Can’t have that.
(via sosungalittleclodofclay)
What is it with people who make crappy arguments and then get called on it and say it’s everyone else’s fault for not understanding what they “really mean”?
/rhetorical
Not to mention that even in the “expanded” argument, it still codes offenders as male and victims as female.
(via siryouarebeingmocked)
(Source: waitforhightide, via siryouarebeingmocked)
-
8Visit us at: www.praise-and-worship.com
