[beyond the fields we know]

The basics: born and raised in Buffalo NY but now living in Baltimore with a couple years in Boston in between. Heathen with strong Celtic influences. Gender: neutrois-male. Pronouns: "he" or "they". 27. Gaaaaaaaayyy. Natural ginger with mutton chops. Tattoos are all zoology themed, as a rule. Total geek for the natural sciences. Working retail full time, perpetually broke as fuck. Gay married since 2005. Companion animals of choice: degus.

This blog is primarily for sharing pictures that I like (some of which occasionally consists of photos I have taken and crafts I have made).

See posts I've liked.
Message me.
READ THIS FIRST! (A list of things to expect when following me)


categories:
photography | video | audio | artwork

things I post a lot about:
paganism | heathenism | analog | nature | dreamy | psychedelic | fractals | surreal | forest | the fair folk | birds | precious things | Holga | Polaroid | cross-process | vintage | autumn | mushrooms | Halloween | pretty things | space art | fantasy | sci fi | winter | snow | fairy lights | shinies | dark | spooky | eerie | somewhere beyond the sea | we're made of stardust | can I plz live here?


Etsy
Buy Handmade
LindenTea


[knots and loops] // my etsy shop
my etsy shop tumblog

//

Linden Tea - Flickriver (photos)


CURRENT MOON



Creative Commons License
All of my own work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.


Photos by others will be credited & linked if at all possible. Unless stated otherwise, most of the content of this tumblog was not created by me. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE CREATOR'S CREDIT WHEN REBLOGGING.

REMOVING CREDIT WHEN REBLOGGING MAKES BABY JESUS CRY.

Ask me anything
read this first!
[knots and loops] etsy shop
follow my shop on g+ for updates & new listings
my flickr photostream
Archive
RSS feed
Theme by Stijn
February 3rd
1:21 PM

some thoughts on white privilege

grrrlvirus:

all white people, whether we consider ourselves racist or not, directly benefit from racism through white privilege. all white people are responsible for racism because we benefit from it at the expense of other people. an individual prejudice based on race is not the same this as the long history and current complex structure of systemic racism, white supremacy and colonialism. white people often have a hard time seeing white privilege because it is our privilege not to see it. we are oblivious to it because we don’t know what living with racism (and without white privilege) is like. but here are two small examples of white privilege operating in my own life: 1) i was arrested for shop lifting. i was not charged. if i were a woman of colour i most likely would have been. because of my whiteness i therefore do not have a criminal record, giving me access to many freedoms that would have been taken from me had i been charged. 2) my sister, who is also white, went missing. my family called the cops. at first they tried to give us a run around but we managed to convince them to look for her. they did look for her. they took it seriously. because a white girl was missing. meanwhile the running statistic is that there are 500 ‘missing and murdered’ native women in canada, hundreds of women who are not being looked for because they are not white. these women’s lives are just as valuable as my sister’s and their loved ones love them just as much as i love my sister. whiteness means that the cops look for us, so therefore our lives are considered valuable. to me this is one of the most terrifying examples of how racism and white privilege operates. and those are just two isolated examples. i benefit from white privilege at the expense of people of colour every day of my life. acknowledging it and understanding how it works are the first steps to undoing it. -clementine

(Source: clementinecannibal.com, via abagond)

January 11th
3:56 PM

notyourkinddear:

jalwhite:

notyourkinddear:

What message does it send queer/gay/trans* people today who struggle with coming out and aren’t ready/able for whatever reason(s) if we go around calling historical figures “cowards” for not talking about their sexual/gender IDs in times and places where it was even more difficult than it is here and now?

I truly do not understand. I don’t think it’s my place to say what any other queer person should be talking about, in regards to their own experience. It’s certainly not for me to judge their bravery/cowardice if they choose to keep some things private or speak on others.  Particularly when I am not privy to their thought process - feelings - sense of safety, etc. - how could I judge? That’s their process. I have my own. I have my own reasons, based on my own situation, for living my life the way that I do. So I don’t really think it’s up to us to judge. In contemporary or historical settings. Average citizen or political figure. I may wish that someone I admired had shared more of themselves - had addressed all of the issues that I want to hear them address but it’s unfair. I cannot, in a world still so unsafe and unsupportive, hold their ‘silence’ against them.

Bolding mine.

Yes. I fully acknowledge that it is beneficial to us to see our history, to know that people like James Baldwin and Audre Lorde and Gloria Anzaldua and Frida Kahlo and Langston Hughes (etc.) were out. It is POWERFUL and inspiring and strengthening for us to see and reference. But there is the other side of that, which is that we are looking to them to affirm us. That isn’t their responsibility.

I am more saddened when I find out people I admire were not able to be their full selves in a public and unashamed way because I feel for how oppressed and repressed they were. Not for myself and my own wishes. But a sadness for them, for the difficult and painful choices they had to make, for knowing they lived a half life or hidden life, in fear. I empathize.THAT is something we can talk about.

But to call them names or deny the value of their work because they lived with that fear and repression? That’s just selfish and shameful. And arrogant.

Yes!

NOBODY is obligated to disclose their LGBTQ status “for the cause”. Especially not if doing so would put themselves in danger (and that includes “invisible” harm due to mental health reasons, like anxiety, etc.). It does not make someone a coward to avoid a dangerous situation if they can. It’s hard enough now, let alone in the past. Goddamn.

(via poemsofthedead-deactivated20120)

December 29th
1:13 PM

Can we get serious for a moment?

saltmarshhag:

mohandasgandhi:

I don’t even care to address this “transabled” and “transethnic” nonsense because it’s too ridiculous and insulting to take seriously.

Perhaps this will be the last thing I say about the Tumblr “social justice” community because while poking fun at it is amusing, it’s incredibly exhausting.

While I can see the merit of wanting to prevent “triggered” episodes of intense anxiety amongst genuinely oppressed persons, the manner in which you attempt to do so is counterproductive because the conversation itself has become an immense distraction. The vast majority of the content I see from the Tumblr SJ community is manufactured “justice,” that is, you create the problem to solve.

Everyone wants to be the victim but no one wants to be the hero. Tumblr “social justice” has become one big distraction from actual social justice work and academia and quite honestly, it’s embarrassing to watch. I see more instances of people jumping down each other’s throats for not posting a trigger warning on, say, posts that merely mention sex workers than I do of legitimate discussions about progressing the welfare of sex workers and it’s ridiculous. Who are you helping? What good are you doing? Social justice isn’t posting trigger warnings and coining terms for manufactured oppressive conditions. You can’t protect people from each and every entity that may or may not cause some degree of anxiety.

The Tumblr social justice community is harmful to people who are actually oppressed because your struggle to manufacture a condition where you get to be the victim is directing the attention towards you, people who don’t need help. It’s insulting and in all honesty, shameful. You’re making light of genuinely significant oppression and it needs to stop.

precisely - too many solutions looking for problems.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ truthiness.

one thing though, I’d disagree with the statement “no one wants to be a hero,” since it actually seems more to me that there are an awful lot of Tumblr SJ™ folks who do seem to be trying to be THE ONE, the Big Damn Hero who righteously calls people out for these new forms of victimhood and “oppression.” (by appropriating the philosophy and language of actual major systemic oppressive structures.) I’d say we have an awful lot of people trying to be big damn heroes on our hands. :| but I think that’s tied to the “wanting to be victims” thing, since hey, if someone isn’t being actively victimized, what better way to become a victim than inciting the anger of people on the internet by appropriating their very real struggles!

December 26th
4:46 PM

unknowablewoman:

freibiergesicht:

saltmarshhag:

weexist-weresist:

i really wish some of you would stop talking about disabilities because you are doing a disservice to everything by spouting this contrived bullshit

the following is a list of nuance you must be able to speak to and with if you are interested in disability justice. obviously not everyone agrees on everything but tumblr dialogue on disability ignores most of these points:

>not all disabilities are created equal

>you can have a political identity related to a disability (capital D Deaf people for example) but disability does not function as an identity in the same way that gender/race/sexuality does

>unlike all genders/races/sexualities, some disabilities are bad. the experience of having a disability is more varied than gender/race/sexuality based discrimination. so ‘ableism’ doesn’t make sense because there is a very narrow set of experiences, conditions, and relationships that are shared by everyone with a disability, even when there is overwhelming institutional bias against ppl with disabilities

>unlike [cis]sexism/racism/homophobia, people actively take steps to avoid disabilities in their life and for the most part they should. it is not ‘ableist’ to suggest gangrene is bad and most people dont want amputated limbs. it is also not ableist to value health, but generally wrong to suggest everyone has every opportunity to be healthy. i remember there was a post going around saying ‘its my body i can ruin it and do whatever i want to it, health is not a mandate.’ insofar as you can achieve health to the highest degree possible given your life, you should. it is not ableist to be freaked out by fringe groups such as trans-amputees.

>many if not most disabilities, unlike discrimination based on gender/race/sexuality, posit barriers that are natural and unavoidable. people get disabilities as they grow older, for example; even if you removed all disability-based discrimination, many people with disabilities will still have them/be in pain/even still dying. thus most people with disabilities cannot reasonably endorse culturally separatist ideology (for example, the claim to eugenics because of abortions) because disability is something that is more inherent to the Human Experience in some form or another than the institutional effects of racism/[cis]sexism/homophobia. the stupid language critiques that i see on this website implies a claim to a culturally separate identity/existence, one that doesn’t pan out except in the minds of teen-radikal activists. 

>disabilities that are rightfully pathologized (ie regarded as bad because people will never be able to have functional lives unless they go away/are treated [such as, but not limited to, mental illness in various degrees] particularly when they hurt other people) should not be enabled/facilitated. ie narcissism shaming isnt ableist, special snowflake syndrome is not epistemological violence, if a schizophrenic tells me he can fly or (as on tumblr) that he is actually a faerie-wolf-bridge, i dont have to encourage that delusion nor should i.

>i love you snarky bitch faces you assume anyone against the social model of disability justice or basically tumblr sj ‘must’ be able-bodied, a term which 1- does a disservice to the spectrum of disability that exists, and 2- implies that all people interested in disability justice think like 18 year olds with too much time on their hands with access to a judith butler book. just because i dont codify every possible identity marker i might have on the side of my tumblr doesnt mean you get to assume things about me [full stop].

i think ableism and disabled identity pretty much are things, i mean there are are times when it’s useful to come with a unified social analysis. there are a lot of people out there who talk thoughtfully about disability and ableism. the problem is with lazy SJ culture infecting everything.

pretty much beside the point just putting it out here: i don’t believe otherkin or multiplicity is the result of severe chronic mental illness. it seems like there are too many people who are like “yeah, i did that when i was younger, i grew out of it” compared to how many people i’ve encountered who thought they were jesus or experiencing mind control and just rationally cognitively processed their way out of it (none). 

Interesting points in both posts here.

I do think that abelism is absolutely a thing.  I’m not even sure how comfortable I am with conflating, as I’ve said before, a whole host of very disparate experiences, such as chronic illness, permanent physical disability, temporary physical disability, acute, severe mental illnesses, chronic but low-level mental health issues - I don’t think how all those things are treated and the problems they can cause for people (whether it’s because those things are inherently bad or because of society’s treatment of people with those things) are neccessarily that similar although they can be - sometimes.

It makes me think of the critique of Lady Gaga’s “Paparazzi” video as abelist, because in the video she is pushed from a balcony and as the story of the video progresses she dances in a wheelchair and then in crutches.  I saw one critique that referred to it as “c___ drag” and while I agree there’s a lot going on in that video that can and should be unpacked and critiqued, in the stuff I read she was just called “abelist” as if she was engaging in that video with permanent physical disability in an approrative way versus temporary physical disability, which is an experience that is really fucking common to almost all human beings.  On “Work of Art” one of the contestants was in a horrible car accident and made art about it.  She now appears to be able-bodied/may be able-bodied but for a time she wasn’t.  If she continues to make art about her experience of being temporarily disabled, is she being appropriative and abelist?  Obviously not.  Does it matter for the sake of Gaga’s video if she had once broken her leg or not and thus used crutches?  This is clearly one of those ways in which constructing disability identity/abelism as totally and utterly analgous to any other identity/ism falls down completely.

But none of this means disability isn’t a thing and abelism isn’t a real oppression.  Once again, the problem is treating all ‘isms’ as if they operate in the exact same fashion and being lazy, yeah, and using lazy SJ rhetoric to interact with it.  Not wanting or being able to date or stay in a relationship with a mentally ill person isn’t necessarily abelism and likewise comparing that to not wanting to date someone who is oppressed on another axis because of that axis is a shitty comparison.  This isn’t to say that stereotypes and societally-reinforced negative messages about the mentally ill don’t affect how people chose their partners, because it obviously does.  But it can be a lot more complicated than that and I don’t see how it does anyone a service to act as if the only problems all disabled people face are just societal oppression.  That makes no sense.

As far as otherkin/multiples go, I would be willing to guess that the vast majority of them do have some mental health issues, just as the vast majority of people who are really, really into the internet and fandom have some mental health issues, but I’d also bet that they’re generally the same ones - a higher incidence of depression and anxiety than you’d find in the general population.  Otherkin are generally fandom gone too far, and while their mental illnesses may affect their desire to identify as otherkin, I don’t really think it’s that different from how someone’s mental illnesses may contribute to their desire to stay inside and write Harry Potter fanfic all day.  It’s certainly, certainly not worth injecting abelism into the otherkin discussion anymore than it is into a discussion about how much fanfic sucks.

Also I cannot believe some of the responses to this.  Seriously seriously cannot.  It’s like a straight-up parody of Tumblr SJ thought.

I have issues with the fourth point (mostly because it’s been used to justify fat shaming) but otherwise, yes, I need this post and its commentary on my Tumblr.

I am currently disabled by mental illness. I get assistance for it. It is a documented thing. I do not, however, identify as a disabled person, and do not owe anyone on Tumblr an explanation of my status during pedantic arguments about “oppressive ableist language!!1” or what have you. It’s complicated as fuck (mostly by the fact that there is always the possibility of recovery/remission) and, sorry, but I’m far more concerned about the urban poor’s lack of access to mental health care in this city than I am about some kid on the internet calling his sister crazy.

And no, I’m not putting in a fucking trigger warning for an ableist slur over that last sentence. Fuck your trivializing, appropriative bullshit.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Read this OP and the commentary!

(Source: cosmopolitan-fascist, via saturniinae)

December 20th
2:03 PM

note-a-bear:

liquornspice:

sistercrow:

liquornspice:

note-a-bear:

liquornspice:

But, honestly, I’ve read some things from people who identify as otherkin and they brought to mind things I’m very familiar with: feelings of inhumanity and fractured identity. 

And I generally like it when people reject DSM/pathological/medical-type labels and assert their own identities…

But there’s still a white-privilege-Carl-Linnaeus-colonization-y vibe I get from the framing of otherkin identity.

And it’s hard to explain, but I much more relate to people like Michael Jackson when it comes to framing my inhumanity. Because humanity is something we are similarly barred from.

Idk, but there is something very “white” about it that I do not trust. And I’m not sure it is as innocuous as I used to think…

I think….and I’m struggling to sort of balance feelings here, so pardon if I get rambly….I think for the most part the notion of otherkin isn’t something I mind. Well, I suppose what I mean is conceptually I think it’s interesting, and I’m glad folks who fall into that space have that space.

-

Then there’s everything else that gets under my skin, the kind of…hm…I suppose the notion and the way the community as it appears from the outside is framed/gathered. It seems to be so focused and oriented on not-human as a way to avoid/”transcend” race issues and the realities of living in a body that is [X] (whether it is white or non-white, able-bodied or disable, cis- or genderqueer/Trans*). In a lot of ways it seems like some sort of….

…I really hesitate to say this, because I think it devalues a lot of what folks who don’t feel human are working with/through, but I need to say it. It seems like an evasion of sorts. It seems like rather than address how one lives/works/fits into (or doesn’t, for that matter) the world at large there is such a focus on the being not-human that rather than serving as a useful outlet/working through of that experience it’s just a sidestepping of the fact that for the time being, you may feel, see yourself as, and/or encounter your space as a non-human, but everyone around you sees a human and values you according to gender, cis- (or not) status, race, class, etc.

-

-

Then there’s this other part which I’m trying to figure out. This part where I have a sneaking suspicion about pathologizing people. I’m far from confident in saying otherkin don’t get pathologized or even protect themselves from that. But it occurs to me, mostly as a nagging sense, that if you had a group of POC, or Women-identified folks, or otherwise marginalized people really speaking about stuff (even in the sort of sequestered way otherkin do now) there would be…well…there would be mass mobilizing of the medical industrial complex. There would be a lot of exploitation (I mean, seriously, can you imagine the field day white folks would have with POC who clearly identified as non-human? Or heteropatriarchal men with women who identified that way? Or cis-folks with Trans* folks who explicitly identified as non-human?).

-

I think—and I want to be clear I’m not saying anything along the lines of “otherkin privilege” here, or anything remotely like that—there is an inherently privilege (or perhaps more accurately privilege ignorance) to being able to claim non-human status. It’s essentially my issue with some of the “pomosexual” texts I’ve read.

-

While I think there are ways to aggressively take hold of a non-human identity (little light’s essay comes to mind, as do some other texts on monster theory) as a means of interrogating how we create the category of “human” or “person,” this doesn’t feel like one of those examples to me. One of the pitfalls inherent to the discussion of a non-human identity, though, is using it as a shield from engaging with day-to-day privileges and/or lack thereof. It creates an artificial vacuum, if you’ll allow the metaphor. Rather than being self-sustaining, that artificial vacuum takes all sorts of energy to fuel (imagine a light bulb, where an artificial vacuum is created as a means to ignite and contain the light of the filament within; after a certain time, that vacuum will fail). More to the point, that artificial vacuum cannot exist on it’s own. It takes an entire industry to maintain and manufacture.

Similarly, a personal theory of identity, or rather, a personal identity built on being non-human, can fall into the same trap. If not careful with how it digests and reforms existing structures of personhood, it merely recreates the same power struggles while adding nothing new to the conversation except maybe some new slogans.

-

-

-

Not sure if that made sense or if it’s just rambly blah. It’s 2am here, and I’m stringing things together as they filter through my head.

I very much get what you’re saying and these are the same conflicted feelings I have about it.

-_-  Okay.  So.  Not all otherkin people are white.  Otherkin is not a modern phenomonon.  It is something that can be traced in many other cultures throughout history. Not all otherkin are men or male-identified.  Not all otherkin are cis, straight, privileged.  Also, Trans* people already do identify as non-human and guess what?  CIS PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HAVING A FIELD DAY.  Go look in the otherkin tag. Never mind that trans* people are often compared to otherkin in a derogatory manner as a way of invalidating their identities as it is, resulting in many trans* people having to denounce otherkin as truly delusional in order to give credibility to their own identity and plight, distancing themselves from otherkin and other non-human identities.  Never-mind that there are more than a few trans* people who identify as otherkin as well and say that the dysphoria is comparable. 

More to the point.  This entire post seems to be focused on saying “otherkin are oppressive by virtue of existing”, “otherkin are escapist”, “otherkin are falsifying their identities in order to excuse themselves of racism.”  All of which is bullshit.

It seems like an evasion of sorts. It seems like rather than address how one lives/works/fits into (or doesn’t, for that matter) the world at large there is such a focus on the being not-human that rather than serving as a useful outlet/working through of that experience it’s just a sidestepping of the fact that for the time being, you may feel, see yourself as, and/or encounter your space as a non-human, but everyone around you sees a human and values you according to gender, cis- (or not) status, race, class, etc.

Do you not realize that this exact stuff gets said about trans* people?  About people with invisible illnesses?  About POC that appear to be white?  About poor people who can afford to have nice things?

Does this mean that because I read as male, I should stop focusing on the fact that I am female because that is not how people see me?  That I should not focus on the fact that I am autistic because I pass as neurotypical?  OCD?  Depressed?  Should I not bother caring that I am poor because I have nice things?  Because you are clearly missing the point that the issue at hand is society and other people seeing you not as you see yourself, which is exactly the thing you are claiming otherkin need to get over so we can work through it to get past that part of our identity.

I also don’t like that you seem to be implying that otherkin are ignorant and oblivious and not thoughtful and lack all powers of analysis and somehow have no ties to society and that once we come out, we suddenly stop participating in society entirely somehow.  Like we are all entirely ignorant of society.

If not careful with how it digests and reforms existing structures of personhood, it merely recreates the same power struggles while adding nothing new to the conversation except maybe some new slogans.

Because that statement could also be applied to PRETTY MUCH EVERY MOVEMENT EVER.  That if we are not aware or conscious of how we approach oppression and society that we are going to recreate pre-existing power struggles.  That otherkin are JUST SO MUCH MORE OBLIVIOUS THAN EVERYBODY ELSE that we can’t possibly help but do that. 

I should also note that otherkin do accknowledge that while we ID as a non-human, we are still aware that the body we have to use is a human one and how that affects the way with interact with society and fit in.  Perhaps you just think that otherkin are not thoughful at all.  That once we come out we cease inteacing with society and retroactively stop being involved in it as well.

This whole thing rubs me the wrong way. 

This response makes me tired. I do not think you listened to anything we said. No one said otherkin are all white cis men.  People of color can perpetuate whiteness and white supremacy, women can engage in sexism etc etc etc etc etc.  Please stop reading what we wrote from an either/or framework.

I honestly just don’t get how you got any of this from what we wrote?  It seems like you read past the actual content of our posts and you are responding to some pre-conceived notion of people who have problems with otherkin.

I am studying for a test right now but I will definitely come back to this later. Because this response seems symptomatic of a lot of things.

So I’m really gonna practice some self-care and not even actually do what I want to do, which is a full response/take down of this person. Because here’s the thing, if someone wants to willfully ignore what I’m saying (short version: I have complicated feelings about otherkin and their positionality re: the freedom/privilege to say “I am not-human”) then there’s really nothing I can say to convince them of what I’m saying or find an adequate position from which to have this debate.

-

-

Basically, I’m gonna say this:

  • lineages of existing does not make a group not-racist, or not-sexist, or not-anything.
  • by comparing otherkin communities to people with invisible disabilities and trans* communities, and their fight for visibility, support, and basic recognition(s) you basically prove my points.
  • no one is dismissing otherkin in this conversation, nor are they trying to erase them or put them in the closet, as it were. rather, the discussion is aimed at expressing a feeling of dissatisfaction with how conversations re: otherkin and otherkin identity are held.
  • And yes, it is fair to say that every movement/identity could benefit from avoiding baseless sloganeering if it does not examine it’s relationship to power.
  • Finally, no one is arguing that otherkin don’t face their own struggles, the argument is that saying “Oh, it doesn’t matter that in the world I exist as [X] because that’s not actually who I am.” Because it’s the reality of what we like to call Passing Privilege (or, since you’re so keen on pointing out that there are otherkin who are not male, not cis, not white, not able-bodied, etc why don’t we call it Passing Oppression). Just because you’re not [X] (here being human-identified, for the most general term) doesn’t mean you don’t receive the benefits of living in a world which views you as human.

With that, I’m done.

Because I’m pretty much all out of fucks to give.

on otherkin and whiteness… to go back to when I mentioned that I frequented otherkin/therianthrope online communities back around ten years ago?

I dunno how it is now (and I don’t know if any of the current tumblr otherkin folks are old enough to have been on the same message boards), but back then there were a FUCKTON of white pretendians who were really really reeeeaaally into ~Native American spirituality~ and “shamanism” (I put that in quotes because their practice was basically just meditation and visualization, more for personal use than for community benefit BUT OH HEY let’s call it ~shamanism~ because that sounds cooler than meditation) as a way to connect to their were-side/kin-side. and like I said in my previous post, it probably had a lot to do with the superstardom of Goldenwolf & Kyoht (both big time cultural appropriators)… also probably a lot of that 90’s-style fluffy bunny eclectic “wicca” stuff, too.

December 14th
1:29 PM

(Source: kfffunk, via desliz)

December 11th
12:46 AM

loveoflopt:

Nooo, his giving birth was punishment for it (according to this person). Whcih I think is even freaking weirder. Is the person trying to suggest that cis straight women are being punished with childbirth as well? O_o

(Although some argue that he was punished for pointing out the problems of the Aesir in Lokasenna)

ohh I see. yeah, that idea is fucked up and full of misogyny and cissexism. ugh.

but to tie this in with misogyny in other major influential religions, recall that painful labor and childbirth is said to be all women’s punishment for Eve taking the fruit of knowledge, so there’s a precedent for the concept of childbirth-as-punishment in religious beliefs (it’s still fucked up and misogynist at the heart of it). but people bringing that into heathenism feels like someone is trying to push their UPG on everyone else. guh.

12:20 AM

In case anyone wanted to read some Asatruar/Odinists talk about how homosexuality is wrong and non-whites need to GTFO

loveoflopt:

Because I TOTALLY DID. Trying to find trans people talk about their experiences in Asatru, yes, this is what I wanted. Being told that having birth was Loki’s “punishment” for changing his gender and sleeping with a dude-horse.  That is what I wanted.

Ugh.

There is just so much wrong….

I am sooooooo not going to bother clicking the link. :|

but I’m puzzled that I’ve also heard this from others — the idea that Loki’s binding was punishment for breaking gender roles/rules/norms — when I swear that the Edda that I read said that Loki was bound and punished for his role in Baldr’s death.

once a non-pagan friend of mine was in a conversation with me about, I forget, something like heteronormativity or cissexism in myth, and he said, “and Loki was punished for giving birth!” and I was sitting there, scratching my head, trying to remember just where in the lore it mentions Loki being punished specifically for being Sleipnir’s mamma. because I thought Sleipnir was generally considered to be pretty fucking rad by the Aesir?

obviously, in the Lokasenna, Loki is chastised for being “womanly”, but it comes across as the sort of insult that came about because the rest of the gods were reaching for because they were exceedingly angry at Loki for other reasons, not really the central reason for criticism, and once Loki counters that accusation by mentioning that Odin also engages in non-gender-normative activities, the subject is quickly changed.

also, this link is why I roll my eyes whenever anyone wonders why I am ridiculously fucking wary of most pagan communities, because seriously, they are for the most part a horrible clusterfuck of privilege and bigotry (despite the liberal stereotype of paganism) and I appreciate the fuck out of all the awesome pagan folk I have found on tumblr and I wish we all lived close enough to have a big Non-Oppressive-Asshat Pagan Festival or potluck or pancake breakfast or something. :B

December 9th
2:33 PM

no one is obligated to be attracted to genderqueer, gender-neutral, or other non-binary people.

galesofnovember:

saltmarshhag:

in fact no one is obligated to be attracted to anyone.

and this isn’t about “no blacks/fats/fems it’s just a preference ;D” bullshit.

but no one functions in a hegemony-free vacuum either, including you exquisitely-enlightened pansexuals and radikewl queers.

and whether it’s a sixteen year old who has never encountered internet “social justice” coming out as a lesbian, or an older woman who has been involved with activism shit for a long time and engaged in a decades-long process of interrogating her sexuality and decides she’s only comfortable romantically with women, it’s none of your goddamn business.

this shit is entitled and fucking creepy and really only serves to confirm that there are deep problems with misogyny around “queer” discourse.

and notice, of course, it’s not straight people being held to these standards.

and really, gay men aren’t so much held to those standards either.  So it’s only women that get denounced for even implying that they either only fuck women or choose to identify in a way that centers their romantic relationships with women.  It’s pretty textbook tumblr misogyny.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ truthiness!

this is basically the dynamic which made me wonder “why does the radical queer community spend so much effort ‘calling out’ lesbians (by shaming them into believing their orientation/identity is not as ~righteous~ as queer or pansexual) when they don’t do the same for gay men (or straight people)?” in a previous post.

I also feel like this dynamic causes trans*/non-binary/genderqueer people to be shamed into i.d.’ing as queer or pansexual by default. apparently when a trans* person identifies as gay or lesbian, they are self-hating and So Not Radical or…… something? there is something skeezy and othering and, yes, homophobic about that attitude. I feel like I’ve reached a point where reclaiming gayness is now more important to me than reclaiming queerness.

December 6th
1:56 PM

You kink is not my kink, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to say something.

desliz:

So here’s my view: kink is not, in fact, sacred, and it’s dangerous to imply that we must refrain from critiquing or saying anything negative about it.

I’ve written about this before re: BDSM and my own kink for sexual submission/masochism. As a woman, I recognize that there is no fucking way I can ever disentangle this from sexism, because I grew up in a misogynistic culture that glorifies violence against women, and it will likely still be one when I die. This is not going to stop me from engaging in things I find enjoyable, but I do believe that I have responsibility to both entertain feminist critique of those acts and understand that the cultural context I live in means that other women might be very uncomfortable with what I do for reasons other than oppressive killjoy vanilla prudery.

There is a valid place for the expression “your kink is not my kink”. It is important to have tolerance for acts outside the line of standard heteronormatively-defined sex. “Kink” is defined against a cultural norm, and quite a bit of what falls under that big umbrella involves queer sex and women enjoying sex on their own terms, rejecting culturally imposed ideas about who we should fuck and how, or if any actual fucking is required at all. With that said, no kink exists separate from larger society. Quite a bit of kink still revolves around defining who or what is to be objectified and who does the objectifying. There is no fetish, no kink, that is not informed by the cultural baggage we have all accumulated, and those who have power in “vanilla” society still have that power when they define their kinks. That power is still just as effective at abusing, exploiting, and harming others.

The problem with using the concept of “kink-shaming” to ward off any criticism of any goddamn thing people jack off to is that it ignores this power. A man who has fantasies about raping unconscious women is a man who lives in a patriarchal society where that sort of thing happens all the time, even if he has never actually tried it. Someone who draws sexual images of children draws in a society where child molestation is very common and very underreported, and it is absurd to expect anyone to shut their mouth if they see that same individual being left alone with kids. Rapists enjoy violent porn, even if nonviolent people do too. It’s abhorrent to tell a rape victim she’s “kink shaming” if someone’s love of simulated rape porn disturbs her. When someone’s kink reflects real-world, nonconsensual violence, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people reacting negatively. There is a fuckton wrong with attempting to silence them by accusing them of shaming people who want to impose their celebration of rape and violence on others. That is intolerable. The idea that the feelings of the one who revels in rape and violence come before those who have been or may be raped and assaulted is at the very heart of rape culture. No one is obligated to tolerate manifestations of rape culture, whether it translates into actual acts or not.

Long story short, I’ve got no issues with anything that occurs between consenting adult humans, or between consenting adult humans and inanimate objects, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to be told that I must entertain any discussion that centers around someone getting off on victimizing people or animals. That ain’t just kink, that’s the patriarchy.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ TRUTHINESS.

11:36 AM

Violence Against Women Is a Global Pandemic

cultureofresistance:

Violence against women is a global pandemic? Like H1N1? Like in Contagion? No way. Think of your instinctive response to the idea of a worldwide bio-terror — that’s what your response should be to the normalized level of violence against women around the world. Because, here’s the thing: women are not a special interest group and fighting for the ability to live without violence is not a pet project.

Think I’m exaggerating, don’t you? Until I became aware of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence, which kicked off on November 25, I might have thought so, too. That’s because we, as a culture, embrace the glamourization of misogyny instead of considering its ill effects and trying to change norms. As far as collective awareness goes, we’d rather pass — sexy is so much more fun than sad.

Case in point: anyone else find it interesting that the 16 Days campaign is bookended by the releases of Breaking Dawn, a movie that pivots on male/female violence, love, pain, sex and death and Girl with a Dragon Tattoo?

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not the original name of the series, the title was changed for the English language market from Men Who Hate Women. Steig Larsson’s trilogy, packed with explicit scenes of sadistic gender-based violence, is a global female vigilante revenge fantasy against male perpetrators of rape, trafficking and murder. The story, which features a man-repellant protaganist, was not originally designed to glamorize violence against women — hence the original name, which was simple and honest. However, the intent has been subverted by the name change and at least the initial marketing of the American version of the film, which Melissa Silverstein, founder of Women and Hollywood, described as the “pornification of Lisbeth Salander” when the first poster for the movie featured a naked, nipple-pierced, Mara Rooney as the violent and distinctly not stereotypically female heroine, being protectively embraced by a scowling Daniel Craig (whom I actually love for his cross-dressing We are Equals campaign).

The original name left nothing to the imagination or interpretation. Was the blunt and accurate title, with it’s unsettling and intense misogyny, too harsh, too indicting, too real?

Was “hate” too strong a word? Think there aren’t men who really hate women or think of them, because they are not male, as subhuman, which makes violence somehow more acceptable or inevitable? Maybe you think this is a third world problem, a race or a class specific problem? I know that there are readers who will immediately assume that I’m condemning all men for the actions of a few. In any of these cases, you might want to consider these statistics*:

Consider femicide, which is the murder of women because they are women:

  • In the United States, one-third of women murdered each year are killed by an intimate partner.
  • In South Africa, a woman is killed every six hours by an intimate partner.
  • In India in 2007, 22 women were killed each day in dowry-related murders.
  • In Guatemala, two women are murdered, on average, each day.
  • Honor killings, the murder of women for bringing shame to their families, happen all over the world, including the US.

What about slavery, which is what trafficking is?

  • Women and girls comprise 80 percent of the estimated 800,000 people trafficked annually, with the majority (79 percent) trafficked for sexual exploitation.
  • This number is on the low end. The U.N. International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that 2.5 million people worldwide are victims, of which over half live in Asia Pacific.
  • Trafficking, in the form of the importation of female sex slaves and use of children as sex workers, is on the rise in the U.S. and internationally has reached epic proportions.


Still not outraged? Because if not, there are always euphemistically titled “harmful practices” — which are violent forms of torture and rape. For example:

  • Approximately 100 to 140 million girls and women in the world have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting. Every year more than 3 million girls in Africa are at risk of the practice.
  • Over 60 million girls worldwide are child brides, another euphemism if I ever heard one, married before the age of 18, primarily in South Asia (31.1 million and Sub-Saharan Africa (14.1 million). 
  • These numbers don’t include bride burning, suspicious dowry-related “suicides” and “accidental” deaths or other hateful acts.

Now we’re at plain old domestic and sexual violence:

  • Every nine seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.
  • According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year.
  • Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.
  • As many as one in four women experience physical and/or sexual violence during pregnancy, for example, which increases the likelihood of having a miscarriage, stillbirth and abortion.
  • Up to 53 percent of women in the world are physically abused by their intimate partners - defined as either being kicked or punched in the abdomen.
  • In Sao Paulo, Brazil, which is so much fun to visit, a woman is assaulted every 15 seconds.
  • In Ecuador, adolescent girls reporting sexual violence in school identified teachers as the perpetrator in 37 per cent of cases.

According to the US Department of Justice, someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes in the U.S. (overwhelmingly women). One out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. That is almost 20 percent of our population and the US Justice Department acknowledges that rape is the most underreported crime in the nation.

Worldwide, the numbers are staggering for rape and sexual assault. Especially when you take a look atrape as a tactic and weapon of war. Millions of women (and children) have been raped as the result of the systemized weaponization of men to “dishonor” their enemies. Most recently, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo alone, more than 400,000 cases of sexual violence, mostly involving women and girls, have been documented — a rate of 48 women an hour.

Getting tired, depressed? Almost done.

At the end of the spectrum is relatively “benign” harassment, including sexual harassment at work and street harassment, which I’ve written about extensively in the past two months.

  • Between 40 and 50 per cent of women in European Union countries experience unwanted sexual advancements, physical contact or other forms of sexual harassment at their workplace. Sexual harassment and street harassment are symptoms of a much deeper problem made viscerally evident by the statistics above.
  • In the United States, 83 per cent of girls aged 12 to 16 experienced some form of sexual harassment in public schools. . Worldwide between 87% and 98% of women surveyed reportpersistent, aggressive street harassment that alters the course of their day, their ability to earn a living, go to school, feel safe, achieve equality.

What You Can Do About It?

Violence against women is a global pandemic-we must address patriarchy if we hope for an equitable future.



(Source: socialuprooting, via so-treu)

December 2nd
10:57 AM

Anonymous asked: But couldn’t you understand, Kim, why a trans woman would feel as if the entire second wave is poisoned because of the rampant anti-trans rhetoric within it? I personally am not that much of a bridge-burner, but I can understand why someone would be. That’s all I ask of you. (I’m really trying hard to stay out of this shitstorm, and no doubt Alexis is too, but I will always believe what trans women have to say before anyone else. Always.)

saltmarshhag:

funkyfest:

I can understand why someone would not want to engage with a politics that is harmful to them. Absolutely. A friend of mine recently wrote about not wanting to engage with current feminist activism because she felt continually excluded as a trans woman. And you know what? That is LEGIT as fuck. Frankly? Given the number of critiques of feminism by trans women, I’m a lot more upset about CONTEMPORARY strands of feminism (and “queer” organizing!) that exclude and erase and even attack trans women/people. There was not nearly the volume of scholarship on transgender people when most second wavers were active. Today, it’s inexcusable to not be a transfeminist.


What I’ve seen happening specifically with the internet discourse around the second wave is a rather hasty essentialism that isn’t founded in historical fact, and sometimes feels undercut by misogyny, ageism, and lazy inquiry.


I’m not going to deny Janice Raymond’s inexcusable awfulness. But I’m not about to throw out some 30 years of feminism from between 1960 and the early 90s. I’m of the opinion that things can be problematic and still useful. Because like: nothing is not problematic! That’s not an excuse, but hell forty years ago even trans women said some pretty gender essentialist things, like all transsexuals were women in men’s bodies and such. I can sit here all day and be like, “But what is a ‘man’s body’? What is a ‘man’?” but that’s hella informed by people who have come before me, without whom my existence would be a lot less possible. The only reason we are at a point where we can even name transmisogyny as being a thing is because of feminist work prior to this moment.

I’m really not about to renounce This Bridge Called My Back or Audre Lorde or Gloria Anzaldua or Adrienne Rich or Dorothy Allison or bell hooks’ Ain’t I a Woman?: Black Women and Feminism. Critique them! Sure! By all means! But throw these women out with the bathwater of upper middle class white lady feminism and the vagina-supremacist lesbian separatists who were more interested in buying a lifestyle than social change? NAH, SON. These women were NOT ABOUT ~universal sisterhood~. They were very much about the particularities of their experiences as people of color, as queers, as working class.

I mean, shit, Frantz Fanon said some not-kosher things about homosexuality deriving from an oedipal complex and it therefore being an exclusively “white” phenomenon, but I still think he’s a valuable thinker. I’m not about to stick my fingers in my ears when someone talks about post-colonial theory.

Tumblr is absolutely vile for political discussions, hence me not engaging with people on it. I just can’t personally embrace anything so didactic as “Some really fucked up theorists? THROW MOVEMENT OUT ENTIRELY!” when such a skewed understanding of that movement is being proliferated. Don’t read Andrea Dworkin if that is triggering. Do what you have to do to survive. Critique everything.

My hardline rule has also been to listen to trans women always, but I can also add that some of the critiques of the dismissal of the second wave have been written by people who identify as trans women. And it seems like a lot of the critiques of “radfems” and second wavers have come from trans men and masculine of center genderqueer people, and that just doesn’t sit right with me, I mean it really feels more than a hint tinged with misogyny, no?

It’s not even new or unique to tumblr, to be honest. Allyson Mitchell noticed the misogynistic tint to these discussions like 10 years ago when she was coming up with the idea for Deep Lez (tttttoooooo……. synthesize the really positive aspects of lesbian feminist ~herstory~ with critiques and supposed dedication to inclusivity brought along during “third wave”)

Trans men and masculine of center people who don’t identify as women have been among the loudest voices in these discussions (again, going back well before tumblr to early CampTrans etc) and some of them are very much genuine in wanting to support trans women. But at no point have I seen “this is an intra-woman discussion so maybe my presence in it does more harm than good.” Not once. I can no longer ignore how they have an incentive to keep trans women disidentified with cis women. I can no longer ignore how they’ve created an atmosphere where even calling oneself a “lesbian” is passe or even oppressive. There’s a lot of criticism directed at queer cis women who date trans men, but why is the slightly more sophisticated but just as blatant way in which it falls on women to comfort and validate someone’s maleness/masculinity largely ignored? And why isn’t much of it directed at the trans men who continue to pursue cis lesbian friends of mine after they’ve said “dude no, I’m a lesbian.” I honestly think it’s because trans men and FAAB trans people have gotten really good at casting any decision a woman makes that doesn’t kiss their ass for existing as “transphobic.” How is that good for trans women, exactly?

I’ve said here before that if forced to choose, I will take my chances with cis women’s transphobia over their misogyny. And it’s pretty telling by itself how that is supposed to be some kind of surprise. Here’s a tip for everyone - if you feel like you are being pressured to have default “loyalties” in intersectionality, fuck that shit.

basically.

November 30th
9:15 PM

This is a curse. To all of the unapologetic heterosexists, cissexists, trans-hating, misogynists, racists, ableists, ethnocentrist, anti-progress assholes out there, to all of the slut-shamers and especially to all of those that use the word “rape” as a joke or in a trivial way: may your body show the scars that you inflict upon the souls of others. May your hate be brought back to you, and you writhe in pain from your hate-filled acid words. FUCK YOU. With every reblog this curse will gain power. Let’s let cyber-witcherty start something big.

(Source: witchyways, via beyond-the-wand)

6:39 PM

eateroftrees:

alexbeaver:

Sharp tongue Charlie: eateroftrees: jadelyn: whatfreshhellisthis: saltmarshhag: Well anyway,…

I’d be inclined to ascribe that to people just not wanting anything to do with cis gay men, and that cis women tend to be cissexist in more damaging ways like transmisogynistic polices that endanger/abuse vulnerable trans women and other PWETM, rather than cis gay men who just throw around slurs and make cruising bars unsafe for trans men.

Also discussions about institutional cissexism tend to revolve around the actions and attitudes of cis men, even if it isn’t explicitly labeled as being about cis men.

Soooo apparently criticizing cis feminism is misogyny, but telling a conversation started by a bunch of nonmen (well specifically I’m thinking me, Charlie, and Devyn, but especially Charlie since they started the conversation.) that they need to talk about how men are oppressed more isn’t?

Anyway have you seen how many conversations about how

I don’t think cis feminists or cis lesbians are necessarily any more harmful then cis men.  Like while we do get cis feminists doing things like MichFest and pushing ciscentric narratives of rape and abuse that make it systematically harder for trans women to get resources there, but there’s just as much stuff like the cLGB community—which generally is dominated by cis gay men—putting a huge amount of energy into gay marriage over say, employment nondescrimination laws or addressing homeless youth or making abuse resources not super heterocentric and cis (which to be fair is at least as much cis feminism’s fault, but cLGB people aren’t helping at all.)

Also there’s Dan Savage who’s kind of managed to become a spokesperson for the cLGB movement and we, you know, criticize him all the fucking time.  And I don’t think I’ve heard anything positive about Glee, which is kind of one of those cLGB (or mostly cG) cultural icons right now since one time last summer when I was… hanging out with cLGB people. (Seen plenty of criticism of it though)

If you see trans women and nonbinary people—you know, non-men, criticizing feminism more then gay men, it’s probably because .  And while I don’t actually think it’s misogyny to tell us to criticize feminism less, it is cissexism and binaryism to say “No you shouldn’t criticize cis feminism because they don’t have male privilege!” (though this leaves out the fact that feminism is not the axis of oppression, it’s an ideological movement, so you can’t say “woman” = “feminism” because HI I’m a woman I’m not a feminist, and there totally are male feminists.)

Also the comparison of people being misogynistic while criticizing cissexism to people being racist while criticizing heterosexism is bullshit, because white gay people have white privilege over nonwhite people, cissexism and misogyny are both forms of sexism and operate along the same lines (which is, privileging of male and male associated things, and the necessary reinforcement of hard distinctions between male and not-male)

And like, even trans men—who do have male privilege (mostly, there’s a bit of nuance here mostly involving nonbinaryness but that’s not really important for this point; and in many cases the male privilege relates more to transmisogyny then generic misogyny)—still do experience misogyny.  I mean if society is insisting that no, you can’t be a man, you’re really a woman, it’s not like they’ll go refrain from applying female tropes to you just because you’re really a man.

(And also we really do need to get away from the narrative that only nonmen experience misogyny, experience of misogyny is negatively correlated with being male; ie if you’re male you’ll experience less and you’ll be centered in ways women aren’t.  But that doesn’t mean you never experience it.)

And since this conversation was started by a nonbinary person who already mentioned on their page today that there still are people who use their old name and, you know, misgender them as a woman, it’s fairly obvious they do not, in any way, have male privilege.  Like even if they weren’t misgendered they’re still not male.

So basically my roundabout point is your comparison is bullshit.  And if you just want cis gay men mistreating trans men to be criticized more you probably shouldn’t go into a conversation of people who aren’t trans men.

(And I’m skeptical that people aren’t criticizing cis men, ‘cause I see it a lot, and the bulk of critique isn’t of cis women it’s of cis feminists, and the being irritated at cis lesbians I’ve seen is mostly coming from lesbians.  Actually the bulk I’ve seen lately has come from cis lesbians even SO OKAY.)

just to reiterate, nobody is saying that it is wrong to criticize, critique, or even angrily rant about instances of transphobia displayed by cis women who are feminists and/or lesbians. the source is obviously important: what saltmarshhag has said several times in the past (and I’ve observed this as well) is that a number of (AFAB) People Who Are Not Trans Women will use trans women and transmisogyny as a shield while making blanket statements about ([x]-wave) feminisms and cis women in general — and, indeed, sometimes to get away with misogyny in the process — and even as a radikewl litmus test, in some communities. obviously AFAB trans folks do need to be acknowledging trans*misogyny and calling people out for it, but we tread a dangerous line between doing that and using cis women as a convenient target to prove we’re such awesome allies to AMAB trans folks.

but ok, I was absolutely not trying to re-center anything onto “but trans men (& other AFAB trans people) are hurt by [blah blah] so let’s focus on that instead because it’s so much worse!” I can see how that one statement could have been interpreted that way, so I really should have specified (and perhaps, because I was ultimately continuing on a specific part of the thread where this was already stated, I assumed this would be implied, but you know how tumblr is with long discussions that splinter off into several threads when reblogged, sigh) that what I was referring to is a dynamic of People Who Do Not Experience Trans*misogyny spewing vitriol toward les/bi/queer/feminist cis women who enact transphobic asshattery within their communities, while the similar dynamic of intra-community exclusionary/essentialist transphobia of cis gay/bi/queer men often gets a kind of a “boys will be boys, we know cis men are assholes” pass. or maybe it’s that the transphobia of cis feminists is used to dismiss feminisms on the whole, in a very different way than calling out the privilege of cis men is not used to dismiss any kind of anti-oppressive movement(s). I apologize for not being more specific in my last post. I’m still not sure I’m making sense, but both ~~sides~~ of this thread appear to be having ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS so uh idk :|

and ok, fair enough, in my last post I hadn’t even thought about Dan Savage & the HRC and the like, & yes, they do get a lot of well-deserving criticism. but to compare the two dynamics: how often do you see trans folks or cis allies using Dan Savage’s transphobia as a shield to deny/justify homophobia and/or to dismiss LGB(t) & queer movements entirely?

so just to clarify: the point was not that “calling out transphobic cis feminists is inherently misogynist no matter who does it!” sweet jesus no no no, that was not the intended point, I just wanna clarify that was very much not what I, or anyone else as far as I can tell, meant. can we plz not get into hyperbolic straw-arguments? because nobody said that.

ok, I’m gonna basically back out of this conversation now, basically I just wanna say it’s worth considering what saltmarshhag and ineffableshe have been saying in this, and I was just adding my own thoughts in support of that.

1:51 PM

it feels like a show

mewmewfoucault:

queerestoffinches responded to this thread:

[…]

Holy fucking shit, I have been talking about this ad nauseum with queerboywonder and it’s something that has bugged the fucking shit out of us for like months now. It’s one of my biggest issues, and I’ve written about it before:

I think some of the problem has to do with the way in which the personal is the political affective social justice approaches (anger, sadness, rage, etc) that comes from a lot of women of color feminisms gets appropriated on tumblr. What tends to happen is folks will quote Audre Lorde or someone’s post about anger and leave it at that. No critical engagement happens. I think that can be a very valid way for a marginalized person to cope with the horrific violence in their lives, but at the same time the way that particular brand of politics gets commodified on tumblr, often reduces it, eliminates its context and historical specificity, and then ends every possibility of critical conversation and discourse with it.

The way in which specificity, context, and the histories of how these terms and ideas traffic often gets lost in this endless cycle of reblogging (I wonder if Derrida would be a fan of tumblr?) that completely appropriates the idea for whatever cool new radical politics someone wants to engage with. I don’t think it’s specifically a problem of tumblr, it’s happened elsewhere as well, but I do think tumblr is an interesting place to think about how specific forms of feminism gets reduced to its core ideas and left void of all of its temporal/spatial meaning. Suddenly everyone (for some reason its always white, gender variant masculine presenting folk on my dash…) who has ever had some sort of marginalization in their lives is the subject of mestiza consciousness or Lorde’s angered identity. Anyways, I don’t think i actually contributed much to this conversation, but yeah, it’s been something that I’ve made joke posts about before, but I haven’t been able to articulate. This conversation is definitely getting at a lot of the things I’ve been thinking about and have been weary and critical of.

And definitely has been said by folks way more articulate than me but it’s okay to critique an idea, or a writer, or a historical movement like second wave feminism for the problematics it had, but you also have to situate it within it’s historical context. Same with making comparisons. Hella postcolonial theorists argue for the use of comparison in order to understand structures of power, but it’s also necessary to root those ideas you are comparing and utilizing for your own work into their own particular field, and purpose and context.

this is a really good articulation of a fucked thing that happens - i think you added a lot to this convo!

i remember some good stuff around tumblr over the summer about how anger gets appropriated in some activist communities; i like this that verbalprivilege wrote especially:

yeah, this. I didn’t even identify as a “person of color” or whatever until I came to smith (which I have mixed and complicated feelings about) and it kind of makes me uncomfortable how lots of progressive white people at Smith get angry about racism a lot (or other -isms that they have privileges of), which is cool in a way, but also makes me feel like… who are you getting angry for? because a lot of the time, it feels like it’s a way for someone to try to “own” their privilege in the way that they think they’re supposed to, or feel less guilt for it, or whatever. It feels like a show. and I know that lots of people (esp. in activist/leftist/progressive communities) do stuff like that, and I’m sure that I do it, too, so I’m not specifically trying to call out whiteness or white people as much as how people interact with “privilege” in general. I know that privilege and oppression are useful theoretical frameworks, but I also feel like they often get misinterpreted or misused into ways of creating status, blame and guilt in activist/progressive communities, and that makes me really uncomfortable.

getting angry for other people as a sneaky status-raising tactic isn’t the same as appropriating the words of people (usually women) of color activist to justify one’s own emotional outbursts (or manipulative displays of ‘woundedness’), but i do think these trends are pretty deeply related

(Source: whatfreshhellisthis)