desire and privilege

This post is very Anders critical. You’ve been warned.

Listen, you don’t get to deny all of your favorite character’s flaws and claim they’re “ooc” and “bad writing” and then turn around and say that it’s the writer’s fault for not showing you his flaws. 

They did show you his flaws. They’re right there. 

They showed you that Anders has absolutely no desire to check his own privilege over elves. They showed you clearly that he only cared about elves when he could appropriate their oppression and make it about his own oppression, somehow. 

They showed you Anders repeatedly calling a former-slave an animal and then approving if you sold him back into slavery. 

They showed you Anders throwing slavery into the former-slave’s face as a rhetorical devise, over and over again. 

They showed you Anders proselytizing to a Dalish woman, no matter how much she protested or shot him down. 

They showed you Anders sexually harassing a widow about her dead husband. 

They showed you Anders behaving like some “FRIENDZONED!!!11″ man-child and trying to emotionally manipulate you if you told him you just wanted to be friends. 

They showed you Anders shit-talking your lover and your relationship to your face; quite possibly to their faces. 

They showed you Anders repeatedly shaming a woman of color who he himself has been in orgies with for her sexuality. 

They showed you Anders/Justice [nearly] murdering a teenage girl for questioning him.

They showed you Anders disregarding even Justice’s feelings about the body that he shared with Justice. (”Unwilling participant in our threesome”?) 

They showed you Anders being down-right emotionally abusive if you didn’t immediately agree to distract the Grand Cleric for him. 

They showed you Anders blowing up a building with the clear and direct intention of martyring a group of people he hadn’t so much as asked about it. Anders was never trying to save the Kirkwall Circle, and both the context of his actions and his own dialogue, as well as Orsino’s, make that clear. 

Look, sorry-not-sorry, but what the writers showed you wasn’t some woobie who did nothing wrong until suddenly the game decided to vilify him in Inquisition. What the writers showed you was an emotionally abusive racist and misogynist who didn’t care for any cause but his own and never hesitated to throw other people under the bus–even when that meant those other people’ literally dying–to achieve his own ends. 

That was all in Dragon Age II. If you closed your eyes and stuck your fingers in your ears, that’s not the writers’ faults. 

Oppression Olympics

I hate when inclustionists say “homophobia and transphobia aren’t the only types of oppression! This isn’t the oppression olympics!” Yes, obviously not. There’s sexism, ableism, racism, etc. However the LGBTPN community is here to fight transphobia and homophobia specifically. Just as people within disabled communities are there to fight ableism.

Sometimes different identities intersect in the way they’re oppressed. For example I’m disabled, female aligned (obviously,) lesbian so for me my sexualization or desexualization by others is often the product of one or more of these identities. So I find myself most at home in places that specifically address that unique intersection of those parts of myself. I don’t go out and demand disabilities or whatever be included under the LGBTPN label.

Unlike with asexuality there are widespread religious and government institutions specifically targeting people in homophobic and transphobic ways. These are part of the culture in which we live. The same thing goes for racism, sexism, etc. These oppressive systems have often attempted to control and judge how marginalized people express their romantic and sexual desires or lack thereof.

Even privileged people who exhibit common traits of these groups may find some backlash. Like cishet men who are feminine being treated poorly due to the way “girly” behavior under sexism implies this behavior is weak and men shouldn’t be, homophobia wrongly enforces that it is automatically a sign of being gay and therefore bad, along with transphobia and racism often coming into play. The cishet man is not actually being oppressed specifically for being a feminine cishet man, but he is facing discrimination because of these pre-existing forms of oppression.

In this way aphobia does not stand alone as an axis of oppression. Since as stated before is lacks any wide spread effort to target it specifically. Cishet aces would have their time better put to use by doing things to combat how these already existing oppressive structures effect their ace identity.

For example if you are a cishet ace man who is told he’s not masculine enough because he’s not in to sex? Well that’s toxic masculinity. It’s something directly tied to sexism not asexuality and can effect ace and non-ace men (like those who experience sexual attraction but don’t act on it due to trauma, religious beliefs, etc.) equally. Instead of trying to force your way into the LGBTPN community go to the root of the problem and fight the sexist structures that demand you be stereotypically hyper-masculine.

DAY 3267(i)

Jalsa, Mumbai                     Mar 8/9,  2017                   Wed/Thu 2:22 am


Amitji, Sarkaar 3 is your first release of 2017. What makes  Subhash  Nagre so powerful as  to be the only character of yours to be seen in three films?


Gosh .. !! I had not realised this, but thank you for bringing it up.

Where there is continuity, there shall be desire to revert.You succeed in one vocation, you continue with it. Your team construct wins a series, a game, you continue with it. You build a happy association, you nurture and harvest it again. SARKAR 1 was a success, but I doubt very much whether SARKAR 2 was prompted keeping the success factor in mind. It was done more for the continuation of the story, from where it was left off in 1.

The character, the circumstance and the environ of the story of SARKAR has been alluring. It has begged desire to revert and to continue. It’s like those bed time stories that your Mother narrated when putting you to bed to sleep ; they all started with ‘ek tha  Raja, ek thi  Rani ..’ , and then invariably they would doze off and we the young were wide eyed and anxiously questioning ..‘phir … phir kya hua ..?’ . SARKAR’s narration has invoked similar questioning at the end of each sequel. SARKAR 3 therefore is a natural revert to that childlike question, at the end of the previous film.

BUT .. in my very limited opinion SARKAR is not just another name .. ‘SARKAR ek soch hai’ , it is a condition, a reality, a state, an order. A condition state and order, that exists in every home. SARKAR is authority, governance, politics, not just in its much renowned truest self, but one that reflects its meaning in every day life, more so in a domestic application.

Each individual is a human. He or she may have the benefit of power through political process, in a country, but these individuals have a domestic life as well. And this is what has intrigued me ; does individual domestic circumstance influence in any manner, decisions that are taken by such individuals for State, Country and Governance ? Decisions, that could affect a billion people and their lives ?!

There is a SARKAR in every home - one that guides, takes decisions, masters and commands either servility or compassion. Who rides favour with the Master, who questions, who poisons their countenance to what end, are some of the several obligations that these heads face each moment. What goes on within the closed walls and drawn curtains and for what reason, is complex and many a time unknown to the outside world. Its a politics of a different kind, often referred to as ‘Palace Politics’. Derived presumably from the era of Kings and courts and Emperors with their inner coteries and subsequent intrigues, today, every home is a ‘palace’ and every home has its ‘politics’, the nature of which is guided and abetted by the ‘politics’ it conducts !    

There is a Subhash Nagre in every home and that is why he becomes such a versatile, vulnerable yet respected and an acceptable character. Subhash Nagre is powerful not just by the presence of his conduct, to behave in a manner that he believes is right - ‘mujhe jo sahi lagta hai main karta hoon’ -  but because he commands a system that has existed from time immemorial. The power of that depiction is dynamic and most attractive and loved. Negativity sells, but when you make it credible and right, it endears even more. It’s tough to pull something such as this in film and story .. but RGV and his conviction of the character, has succeeded in doing so. Which is why it attracts continuity .. and my convinced association !

Having played the character twice before, how easy was it for you to recapture inner life of this politician-gangster?


I have reservations about the way you express the character - ‘politician-gangster’ - of SN in this particular question. I hope I am wrong, but to me it breathes, vicious negativity !

Politics compels you to take a stand, a stand that attracts disagreement and debate. Not all are expected to toe your thought  or vision, but those that do become your ‘party’ of part of your ‘gang’. In normal terms ‘gangster’ invites crime, terror and all that is violent and against social and moral norms. But would you address all such ‘gang’ partners, or what you notify as a ‘gangster’, to only be defying moral and social norms. The British Raj identified freedom fighters as 'violent gangsters’ and hung them. Daku Man Singh and Veerappan were revered by the locals they served and looked after. Their means may have been wrong, but to them their act was right and for their own reasons - legal constitutionality not withstanding. Once that is understood, the act of performing is eased out by the concept devised by the director and the writer. My professional conviction is guided and operated by the Director and in turn the Writer. They have already ‘recaptured’ it in their initial discussions. I merely attempt to enumerate their final discussion and design it on film.

Ram Gopal Varma is a very  strange filmmaker , if for no other reason then the inconsistency of his output. Having done so many films with him. how would you  describe your working relationship with this director?


You are so right - inconsistency is indeed ’strange’.

It is ‘strange’ because consistency is downright boring and static - for some. Not all, but for some. If one were to ‘consistently’ wear black, how would they ever discover the presence or the beauty of an alternative colour. Whether they like that range of difference is another matter, but deprived of it would be, to them, discomforting.

RGV is inconsistent because he is a restless creative mind, willing and deliberating continuously, to search valuable seed through his ‘outputs’. To have made me a part of that desire is a privilege for me. It challenged me, provoked me - a condition, I am absolutely convinced, every creative artist pleads for.

RGV’s ‘inconsistency’ may not have given him the desired results he expected, but which artist, maker, producer, director has been able to achieve consistent box office success. Has that stopped us from admiring and applauding their efforts.

Every ‘inconsistent’ offer that RGV included me in, found me striving to live upto his vision. They have all been exercises of great learning. Positive learning.

Stanley Kubrik, “cited as one of the most influential Directors in cinematic history” has had the most diverse and ‘inconsistent’ temperament in his choice of films. From the iconic and revolutionary ‘2001 Space Odyssey’ made in the 60’s, to a period film, to ’The Shining’, ‘Clockwork Orange’ ‘Dr Strangelove’ is the genius of an inconsistent Director. Inconsistency has ridden with the more recent creators too. Spielberg  shifted from an extra terrestrial experience to the Holocaust. Would you call that inconsistency questionable ??!

Yes .. ‘inconsistency’ is 'strange’  !!

Ramu has gone on record to say he regrets doing all the films he has done with you except the Sarkaar franchise.  Your comments please?


This defeats the argument of the previous response. He is wrong. I wouldn’t mind being part of his further regrets !

Abhishek was with you in the first two Sarkaar films. Did you miss his presence in the third film?


This is an obscure question ! Abhishek’s character dies in SARKAR 2 ! How can he be present in SARKAR 3 !! SARKAR structures have differing circumstances and stories around it, but the family is the same ..

Amitji, you continue be exemplary for the Indian  mindset with your conduct and your statements. You recently said your wealth would be divided equally between your son and daughter. What prompted you come forward with this  exceptional declaration?


No I am not exemplary with my conduct and mindset when I declare the gender equality for my children. It is a natural belief of mine. I express it because if my face and voice can sell cement, I hope it can cement this social and moral belief of mine, among my countrymen !

Do you feel that the gender inequality that plagues our social order can  only be repaired by a patriarchal willingness to right the wrongs that cause the inequality?


This question, questions the very tenet of gender equality. Please do not even journalistically attempt to suggest that gender equality can only be repaired by a patriarchal willingness. It should be willingly repaired and accepted if it is propagated , matriarch-ally too !!


Amitabh Bachchan

sweet-but-mostly-sour  asked:

Thoughts on Gunn and also Illyria?

I love Charles Gunn with everything I have, he is such an under-appreciated character, both in the fandom and within the show’s narrative, and I will never stop being bitter about how badly he was treated in-Universe, and how his character and his relationship with Fred were both sacrificed for Wesley’s arc and man pain.

Charles Gunn is an amazingly strong character, stubborn, street-smart, highly intelligent, resilient. He survived on his own for such a long time, took care of his younger sister, tried to keep his crew safe the best way he knew how. He was kind and loving and caring, and always did his best with what he had. He was a valuable addition to Team Angel, bringing his street-smarts and real-world experience with vampires to the table, and he was so much more than “just the muscle”. Watching him grow and evolve over the series, learning to trust Angel and adjusting to a world which wasn’t as black-and-white as he thought was one of my favourite aspects of AtS. His relationship with Fred was beautiful and equal and stable, and one of the best interracial relationships portrayed on television, and the fact that it was decimated to make way for a misogynistic white dude will forever be a tragedy.

Gunn’s treatment within the narrative gets worse and worse as the seasons go on. While initially Gunn was valued for his contributions to the team, his sense of loyalty (despite his conflicted feelings about his new gang vs his old one) and his street-smart intelligence, over the last couple of seasons his character was used more and more as plot point in the emerging Fred-and-Wes dynamic/”relationship” and in Season 5 he is outright relegated to villain status, with the show having Wesley stab him (and condoning Wes’ actions) and having Gunn suffer and almost die over one single mistake he made. The show condemns Gunn for wanting what he never had the privilege or opportunity to, an education, a chance to show off his intelligence, his intellect. The only person of colour on the show was denied the same privileges as the white characters and then punished for desiring that privilege. His story and character are shoved aside in order to prop up two white characters, and his relationship with one of those characters is completely destroyed to make way for the other white character, whom the show tells us “deserves” the girl more.

Charles Gunn deserved better. He deserved to be acknowledged as the strong, smart, awesome character he was. He deserved to have happiness with the woman he loved, who loved him back and treated him as an equal partner until the show decimated them. He deserved to be recognised for who he was, an amazing, multi-faceted character, who was so much more than “just the muscle”. 

As for Illyria, I thought they were an interesting character, and Amy definitely played the character for all it was worth, giving Illyria more depth than a less-talented actress could have. But I hate the way Illyria came to be (fridging Fred in the process), they were introduced far too late in the series to properly explore their character, and I would swap them in a heartbeat if it meant that I got to see wonderful, strong, amazing, resilient Fred Burkle survive.

june 26th: Ben

Despite everything, his job is more soul-crushing than he’d expected.

His parents had been showing him governance since he was old enough to pay attention properly. His classwork was almost double that of his peers, every day he didn’t have an extracurricular to fill his time, he had special tutors to help him go over historical and present governance in Auradon proper, and international countries, as well as their relationship with his father’s kingdom. Rarely did he ever get a day where his future job was not brought up in some way.

And yet . . he still hadn’t been fully prepared for this. When he wasn’t in school or classes, he was committing himself to his duties. Meetings, discussions, smoothing over and solving the constant problems of his kingdom, from the Sidekicks League that were still haranguing him for more rights and privileges, even when those desired privileges caused difficulties for others; to the near-onslaught of some Royals that had problems with the desires of the Sidekick League, or the whims of their children that weren’t being addressed by their school (why were they coming to him with this? That stuff was Fairy Godmother’s purview); or trying to deal with his country’s rampant consumerism that was starting to cause a strain on their country’s resources, especially now that magic wasn’t allowed to be used to fix those problems - not to mention the steady but not yet overwhelming flow of pro-magic letter’s the castle was receiving; Ben was getting on average, less than six hours of sleep a night. Sometimes he got six and a half - if the weekend wasn’t going to be too busy.

Despite his requests for his father’s guidance, their reception on their cruise was not all that reliable, and his father’s advice was rarely useful. ‘Intimidate them until they leave you alone’ was not something Ben wanted to employ (although he was starting to really understand why his father was so fond of it), and his other advice was similarly un-useful.

With the workload, he hadn’t been able to initiate his plan to bring more Isle kids over to Auradon. He did have support from other monarchs that oversaw the nation states that made up Auradon - Queen Elsa, Cinderella, The Emperor of China was open to it, as was Kuzco, Merida of Dunbroch and several others - there were still those that disagreed, especially those with a voice in the media. They used - or tried using - the Incident at his coronation as a fix point for reasons why the children shouldn’t be allowed to 'be good’. That they shouldn’t get the choice, nor the chance.

Even though he wouldn’t change his choice for anything, when Ben brought Mal, Evie, Carlos and Jay over, he’d strapped a cinderblock to his foot, and forgotten how deep the water was before he jumped in. He wanted to stop drowning, even for a minute.
The Movie That's Ready To Make "Bro" Less Of A Bad Word
Richard Linklater's '80s-set college movie is the coziest bawdy jock comedy you'll see all year.
By Alison Willmore

The best player on the 1980 Texas college baseball team lovingly depicted in Everybody Wants Some is a senior named Glen McReynolds, a guy who looks like he walked right off a faded Topps card and into a keg party. Played by former Teen Wolf star Tyler Hoechlin, Glen has the bulgiest muscles, the most luxuriant mustache, and the shit-eating grin of a guy who’s sure he’s going to go on as a pro athlete, that his life is going to become even more sweet than it already is. He’s introduced by almost caving in a kitchen ceiling with the waterbed he’s been setting up in the room above. He grinds every newcomer — including freshman main character Jake (Blake Jenner) — into the dirt to establish his dominance, and he handles losing very, very poorly. He’s the distilled essence of sporty douchebaggery.

But during a lazy afternoon hang-out around the baseball team houses (a pair of much-abused buildings donated by the city to house its players), Glen proposes a bet: wielding an axe as a baseball bat, he can cut a baseball in half midair. The teammate who takes up his wager tosses the ball, and as Glen hefts the axe above his shoulder and whirls it around, the movie slows down as if — like everyone else there — it can’t help but admire the easy certainty with which he pulls of this feat of strength and accuracy. Glen may be a asshole, but he’s enthralling in his physical magnificence, and in that moment, you can’t help but like him, even as he smirkingly offers to go two out of three.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Hi! Don't you think hate in all its form is not something to be proud of and in our societies should be eradicate? Like misandry, racism, misogyny!

Not all hatred is created equally. Some exist as a fear of what is different and a desire to protect one’s own privilege. Others emerge as a direct result of systemic oppression that is not a fear of the unknown or the different. It is instead a very logical reaction, that level of dislike and distrust could keep you safe, keep you alive.

Hatred for white men mostly results in a bruised ego, hatred of black men can result in racially motivate violent murder.

Don’t pretend that hate is the exact same regardless of context.

anonymous asked:

Hi so this is in regards to your post reply to that post making an analogy to the whole sex trade "industry" and Walmart. Although I agree with you 100% that that's a terribly analogy I do believe that there are many faults within the sex trade industry, for lack of better word I'll refer to it as that for now, and this is coming from someone who is a sex worker themselves. I am completely comfortable with what I do but that doesn't mean that all sex workers are, that many people within...

different fields of the sex trade industry are coerced into doing things against their will. It urks me a bit personally when I see other sex workers who like myself are comfortable with what they do but who don’t acknowledge the fact that just because they enjoy what they do and just because they’re in control of it that not every sex worker out their is. I feel like a lot of the problem lies within the fact that like you said it isn’t so much an industry, I believe that all fractions of…

The sex trade “industry” need to be regulated properly, do you agree with this? Although it may not solve some issues entirely unfortunately, things like human trafficking (I think it would help with that though) I do believe it would be a step in the right direction, do you agree with this?

What makes you think I am comfortable with what I do?  What convinced you that I love my job, and I do it because it’s exactly what I would like to do, despite having loads of other options that would meet my needs?  Where did you see anything that supported that?  The desire to advocate for the rights of sex workers to work free from violence and fear is not inherently a desire of the privileged, empowered worker.  How condescending and terrible is that?  To say that, if you envision a better world for yourself and your colleagues, you must be some carefree choosy-choice person?  What does that say about the more marginalized and oppressed among us?  Are you suggesting that they’re incapable? Or that they don’t care?

That post  keeps getting circulated, and clever-clogs like you turn up in my inbox thinking that they’re the first person to say to me “did you ever consider that maybe some sex workers don’t want to do sex work?”  ignoring the four and half thousand pieces of writing on my blog (not to mention that the actual content of that post has exactly nothing to do with liking sex work) dealing almost exclusively with sex work that maybe just might provide some shred of context, some tiny piece of evidence that maybe, gasp, sex workers are very well fucking aware that we experience exploitation, violence, and coercion as a result of our work, and there just might possibly be a discussion already happening about what to do about it. As a sex worker, know that your colleagues are all around you, working on this shit.  Get involved, if you have the resources, k?

Now that that’s out of the way. Let’s answer your actual question. 

It drives me up a wall when I hear this constant, constant rhetoric about regulation as a means to combat abuse in sex work.  First of all, the state is the primary perpetrator of violence against sex workers, period.  It’s not clients who get us evicted, it’s not managers who arrest us, and, according to some (really fucking thorough) surveys, cops themselves are twelve times more likely to actually assault sex workers than  anyone else.  The idea that regulation by the state is going to be a boon to sex workers is a farce, and it’s one that could only reasonably be believed by someone who is, as you describe, “comfortable” in their work and more or less shielded from the consequences of criminalization, and from the violence of poverty.  Because, as I constantly tell rad fems who want us to die, regulation targets specifically the sex workers who are most at risk of violence and exploitation – licensing laws and restrictions on how to work only serve people who have the resources to jump through those hoops.  

This does not mean that sex work should be some magical free for all where anything goes. Sex workers, when we are left to our own devices, when we are free from fear of criminalization, are more than capable of combatting the abuses in our industry.  We’re out suing strip clubs for breaking civilian labor laws, we’re forming collectives to provide legal aid and health services, we’re sharing safety information and best practices ideas, we’re finding ways to provide support services for one another so that we don’t have to rely on abusive civilian bosses. We’re choosing the safer sex methods that work best for us.  We police our own communities of clients with blacklists and alerts.  Sex workers are the ones who can and should fix the problems within the industry, with the support of our communities, not the state.  

I don’t get it. Most dark-skinned niggas who try to pull this, “Nice Negro,” shtick always want to tell you how you should go for them and not a light-skinned nigga. And although there are plenty of reasons as to why a light-skinned to white-passing man may not be a desirable choice, it’s not privilege dark-skinned men are worried about. They just hate the very idea of a standard they place on us being turned on them. Most of the men who’ve told me not to fuck with a light-skinned nigga turned out to be way more colorist and colorstruck than some light-skinned men I know. Puh-leez. You all have your problems as black men. 

you ever wondered why wisdom is a word we rarely use in this society and why white people are always talking about intelligence instead?

their definition of intelligence renders it an innate characteristic - something somebody is born with. intelligent people say intelligent things and make intelligent decisions, both of which lead to success within this here thing the pigs call a society. 

so if i’m black and i’m deemed intelligent within a white supremacist society, what am i really?

if i’m black and i’m successful within a white supremacist society, what am i really?

what if we threw intelligence and the desire for the conditional privileges white supremacy offers out the window?

what if we wanted to be wise? 

that would require an intense connection with our ancestors and the natural world they prioritized above all else.

these connections can only be fostered by making the most of the things they left behind for us to find and understand. 





please yo i really can’t just see y'all continue to be the walking dead like this. it’s pathetic. 

bout to reblog this in a minute with a list of books so there are no excuses. 

anonymous asked:

prompt (a little long, sorry :D): Molly calls Sherlock after a doctor's appointment and he's absolutely scared that something has happened to their baby. Turns out it's different than he deduced due to her worried voice. (either it's twins, or gender reveal... something like that. I imagine it to be hilarious.) :3

“…behind who?”

“Hermione Granger and the Queen.”

Sherlock Holmes had experienced mind-numbing boredom before, of course, but this was something else. Flat-ridden with a broken ankle, Sherlock stretched on the sofa and groaned at the pain despite having said hindrance propped on a cushion. He recalled the argument he had with his wife, Molly, not one hour ago when he secretly attempted to dress and leave before she could tell him off – he was caught after hurting himself and yelping in pain.

“Sherlock! I love you too much to send you out there in this state.”

“The hole is too small for the cast! They’re going to get it wrong, Molly. I can’t just stay here.”

“You’re not going anywhere. Doctor’s orders. John has the laptop, anyway.”

“But- but…fine, fine. You win this time, Mrs. Holmes.”

Keep reading

Why meta-desires aren't inherently better

Sometimes, people say something along the lines of “not all desires are good. You might desire something about your desires, and that is what we should actually follow, so that we don’t just give addicts more heroin and off unstable teenagers.” But I don’t think that meta-desires are necessarily better. Let’s create a person, and call her T.

T is a submissive, and wants to be have sex. But, T was raised in a cult, and desires that she not desire to have sex. However, T has escaped this cult, and desires that she not desire that she not desire to have sex, because she is trying to reject the trappings of the cult and accept her true self. On the other hand, T desires that she not desire that she not desire that she not desire to have sex, because she doesn’t like mental dissonance and wishes that she wasn’t trying to change her beliefs about something this hard to shake off. Lastly, T desires that she not desire that she not desire that she not desire that she not desire to have sex, because she also really appreciates mental games and trickery and philosophy questions, and thinks that her life would be less interesting if it were less meta.

Now, is it the case that the last desire, because it is the most meta, should be the one that we pay attention to? Do we only pay attention to the meta-desire, even though the meta-meta desire seems pretty important and relevant in this case?

I reject the claim that meta-desires should be privileged over normal desires. Thoughts?

i dont get how the many of the same people barring trans people from using the bathroom because it could “endanger lives” would be fine with those trans people buying any and all assault weapons they can. because its their right, and totally not a danger to anyone.

i understand people believe its their right to own any and all guns, but it’s a right that has been proven to cause harm to others’ lives. and i understand some people feel safer with handguns, but if we can at least get rid of assault weapons and better our system for background checks, we could save so many lives.

and the rebuttal “oh theyll find guns if they really want to banning them wont help” yes, it will help. some of those people are not going to go through the hassle, theyre just not. other people wont be able to or wont know how to get guns another way. and if that will save even 5 lives isnt it worth it?

it just feels wrong to me letting rights/privileges/desire come at the cost at anyone else’s life. it’s literally a life or death situation, and some people are choosing to not care. we’re not seeing national headlines about trans people misusing the bathroom, but we are seeing them as an effect of letting any random person buy weapons meant for war and slaughter.

anonymous asked:

Just so that you're aware, the post about ace/aro people (at least the only one I saw) had to do with a straight ace person joking about bringing a gun to pride. Queer people are probably just exhausted seeing straight people enter our safe space because they don't experience some/any sexual/romantic attraction. Every queer person I've ever known who has been involved in the discussion to any degree (including myself) received horrible threats from straight aces. It's terrifying.

I’m aware that there was someone joking about that. However that’s not what the post I reblogged was talking about. It was talking about the “do aro/ace people even belong in the LGBT community discourse” and IMO yes they do. Regardless, today isn’t the day to argue on that in the wake of the tragedy.

I am sincerely sorry and angry on your behalf that heteroromantic aces have mistreated you and your friends. However asexual people are not straight. And not all asexuals are heteroromantic. Many, many ace and aro experience same gender attraction. Even if they don’t, the amount of prejudice against them is enormous. It is fueled partially by ableism but also strongly by heteronormative culture which insists on people falling in love with someone of the “opposite sex”, having 2.5 kids, and living in a house blahblah. Not wanting or desiring sex is something that both men and women are shamed for. Not being able to experience romantic attraction is something very frequently framed as monstrous. They do not love or experience attraction in the normative and therefore “societally correct” way. Just because you have been badly hurt doesn’t mean these people are no longer LGBT. As someone who identifies under the bisexual umbrella I have faced many, many words of violence from members of the LGBT community, especially lesbian women back when I still identified as female. The cruelty and threats they make towards people like me doesn’t revoke their identity as being LGBT. Furthermore, straight people are already in our spaces as partners, loved ones, and straight trans people. 

Again, after the violence you have faced from heteroromantic aces, I do not blame you for your fears and mistrust and you are perfectly warranted to have them. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t LGBT. It means they need to get their act together and stop being toxic assholes. Do heteroromantic aces have some privilege on the basis of being heteroromantic? Yes. But they also experience oppression for being asexual and being non-normative in their lack of sexual attraction and/or desire. The privilege-oppression dynamics are not so cut and dry.

As opposed to granting marriage to same gender couples, it makes more sense to expand civil unions to include all the rights and benefits of marriage and phase out marriage as a legal institution–to include polyamorous unions, extended families (that often include immigrants who have grandparents or cousins or nephews living under one roof), and untraditional families (such as different people living together to help support each other–or two sisters sharing everything under one roof). That may sound like a strange approach, but we already have civil unions, they just don’t come with all the privileges and rights marriage does and they aren’t as inclusive as they could be.

In the “marriage equality” movement, people made the argument that for equality, nonstraight people need to have access to marriage too. I know because I was part of this movement in a minor way for awhile. For example, I raised money for Equality California to overturn Prop 8 in 2009, and I pamphleted against Prop 8 during the 2008 elections. I know the arguments. The arguments have all to do with equal rights and how non-straight people are treated as second class citizens as long as we don’t have access to marriage. But the problem is, even if we get access to marriage, there are tons of rights others don’t have who DON’T have access to marriage. It’s assimilatonist to see the distinction between marriage and civil unions and say, “oh, lets have the same thing straight people have and take on their values! Who cares about other people harmed by this?" 

Marriage is a social institution that supports certain values. I’m not saying that marriage is inherently bad in and of itself, actually, but it is a problem when the state uses marriage to enforce these values to the detriment of certain people. Politicians such as Mitt Romney and Obama have used marriage to attack single mothers and blame them for crime rates and poverty. Marriage is essentially an incentive plan perpetuated by the government, that rewards people with money and RIGHTS for conforming to sexist gender roles, monogamy, romance, western nuclear family and heteronormativity. If you are a single mother, an immigrant with an extended family, polyamorous, a queer person with an untraditional family (such as a lesbian who is raising her child with her partner and the biological father of the child), or an ace person who shares a household with a sibling, list goes on–the institution of marriage is not only used to withhold rights from you, but it is weaponized against you socially, used to devalue your family and relationships. 

I’m fine with people getting married in churches or other religious or social institutions. But the government should have no part of it. Civil unions can be aromantic and asexual, they can be extended to include polyamorous relationships and untraditional families. If we embrace the true meaning of queer politics and queer life, which is antithetical to heteronormativity, we should be wholly opposed to marriage as a legal/governmental institution (or a social institution enforced by the government). Unlike some people, I don’t think marriage is inherently evil. If traditional couples want to keep up the institution in their private lives, who am I to tell them to stop? However, they should NOT be able to force their values on others to their detriment. They should not have their values privileged over other people to the point where it deprives them of their RIGHTS.

It’s funny how white gay people saw this happening and instead of identifying legal marriage as a heteronormative institution that harms a variety of people including themselves, they started seeing it as a desirable privilege they should have too. This is why "marriage equality” as it is has traditionally been constructed in mainstream LGBT discourse is a misnomer. It’s not equality. It truly is “gay marriage.” That’s how it’s always been sold. Trans and bi people have continually been erased from the discourse, even though marriage rights impact us. And it’s never been about extended families or untraditional families or ace people or impoverished PoC who need to share insurance or immigrants who need citizenship. It’s always been about white, assimilationist gay people who want their love validated by heteronormative society at large. 

I’m for marriage reform and the abolition of marriage as a legal institution. That is my position on the issue. This position is not extreme or impractical. For a time, expanding the rights of civil unions was a priority of the LGBT movement. That changed. If we had focused on civil unions, we could have included the multifacted mosaic of queer life, as well as united with other oppressed peoples. Instead, gay marriage ™ arose, and here we are.