anonymous asked:

do you think that glenn and maggie ever had the discussion about last names where mags was like "babe it's the apocalypse let's just keep our own names who cares anyway" and glenn just being like "no you are maggie rhee now" and then her sighing and going "fine we can hyphenate" and glenn being all smug and triumphant about winning and maggie just thinking to herself "what a nerd i love him"


anonymous asked:

When you two get married who will take whose last name?

P: I don’t know…legally my last name is Stark-Rogers, but I still go by Peter Parker most of the time. Peter Wilson sounds kind of nice.

W: Wade Stark-Rogers…

P: We could hyphenate!

W: Wade Stark-Rogers-Parker-Wilson. No, Petey.

P: It’s a work in progress.

profblahson  asked:

Will Spreading Seas turn off Tron? Why/why not?

Yes, unless the player controls another copy of the same land that’s not affected by Spreading Seas.

The Urzatron lands look at the land types of other lands you control, not their names. Urza’s Tower has the Urza’s and Tower land subtypes. Urza’s Mine has Urza’s and Mine, and Urza’s Power Plant has Urza’s and Power-Plant (note the hyphen).

Since Spreading Seas overwrites the enchanted land’s types and just makes it an Island, the other tron lands won’t see the land as having the correct types and thus won’t be able to make multiple colorless mana with those lands.

So I was tagged by lovely @mollynoble (thank you ^^)

1: Why did choose your url?

at the time I was very much ( and still am ) into reading/watching morally ambiguous chaotic characters, that fall more into the Neutral category( as opposed to chaotic good and chaotic evil)

2: What is your middle name?

I don’t have one actually. My name is hyphenated.

3: If you could own a fairytale/fictional pet, what would it be?

Honestly… I would love a tiny little dragon. Not a big one. Just a little one. It can sit on my shoulder and breath fire at my enemies 

4: Favorite color?
dark green

5: Favorite song?
 Of all time?
Redneck woman by Gretchen Wilson ( don’t judge me, I love party country.)

6: What are your top three fandoms?
Marvel, The 100, Star wars

7: Why do you enjoy Tumblr?
I’m here for the fandom stuff for the most part tbh. I’ve met some wonderful people on here as well, which is awesome!

8: Tag all of your 9 Tumblr crushes (if you want): @usopp @garotteandgoodnight @kalika999 @trebeka @sian22redux @libertinem @moonsofavalon @mathildia and anyone else who wants to play

H*28: Problematic Asian American Youtube Stars (feat. Lucy)

This week for H*28, Chuks and Kari are joined by ragstoreverie (Lucy) to discuss Asian-American Media. In the last few years, especially the rise of YouTube stars, Asian American media has boomed with Wong Fu Productions, Fung Brothers, KevJumba, JK Films/David So, Jabbawockeez, and many more. They play an important role in the community–needed representation and control of production, for example–but they are not without their problems. For asks this week, we answer an ask from Sarah about access to social justice movement, butchrobot about developed/developing nation terminology, and 2goldensnitches about fighting with family members over the Gaza-Israel conflict.

Music: IntroInterludeClosing

Follow us on:



(Image description: 2 images 

1: Image of a black male cartoon face on the left side and an east Asian woman cartoon face on the right with a road in between them and caption, “Hyphenated-lives.tumblr.com” overlaying it

2: Image of black male cartoon face and east Asian woman cartoon face on a yellow background over a road with text, “HYPHENATED* *BRIDGING LIVES & SPACES” overlaying it)


HYPHENATED* is a weekly online audio show and the brainchild of BlackinAsia and unapologetically-yellow. They met through Tumblr and began talking with one another upon realizing that they were both living and working in Asia and had a mutual friend. (‘Tis a small world.) 

With this program, they hope not only to bring stories from their lives, but also their perspective as children of immigrants to events in the world. Understanding their and others’ diasporic roots led them to understanding the importance of intra-People of Color solidarity. 

They are dedicated to learning how all of our lives and stories are connected.

First episode coming soon, follow us on tumblr @ hyphenated-lives.tumblr.com for all updates and upcoming episodes!

hey everyone, try this cool trick: go to h t t p colon backslash backslash w w w dot b i n g dot c o m. next navigate your mouse to the “search” bar and type in this: r i c k space a s t l e y space hyphen space open quote n e v e r space g o n n a space g i v e space y o u space u p end quote. i will leave you to find out what it is… ;)


Based on @oceanpaladin' and @forsaken-spirits‘s fantastic art and ideas

In which a Galran soldier finds a friend, and learns some things about himself in the process.


He woke up to the monotone hum of the ship, pulsating beneath his head like a living being. With Haggar’s latest experiments, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility, he thought, but stood up quickly when another violent crash shook the spacecraft. The other young soldiers in the barracks stumbled out of their rest, confused and searching for enemies as soon as they awoke.

Have we reached Arus yet? Wh-

Keith had barely begun to think before the doors flew open. Captain Haxus bellowed into the room, his voice ricocheting and causing many an ear to recoil from the explosive sound so soon after waking.

“We’ve been hit by the Altean castle-ship! They have infiltrated the hull; capture or kill. Troops, move out, now!”

Keep reading

3 Words to Describe Luptia Nyong'o?

Hey everyone, this week’s podcast of HYPHENATED* is on Lupita Nyong'o who has been killing it with awards this past week (minus the Golden Globes, but whatever) and with her fashion. Was wondering what 3 words you all would use to describe her and will read some of them off during the show. If 3 words is not enough, feel free to write a sentence or two, since I know I couldn’t contain myself either with just a line :). 

Reblog with your comments or comment directly on this post, and you can also submit your thoughts to the hyphenated-lives blog as an ask. :)))


To address a recent post on the Hyphenated Blog.

Following the end of the Hyphenated Lives podcast I engaged in a defense of the ideological position of one of its two hosts. Shortly thereafter, Chuks, the other host of the Hyphenated podcast, generated a post that was presumably responding to the observations of several people (myself included) that Chuks’ behavior was abusive towards his co-host. Either as a result of my defense of his co-host’s position, or his perception that I am in part responsible for the differences in their ideological positions, Chuks decided to include me in his post.

Unfortunately, the form that this inclusion took was one of attacking me for several points which will be listed below. In order to make his argument, Chuks drew specifically upon the two posts I made in defense of his co-host as well as one of two Hyphenated podcasts that I acted as a guest on. 

In drawing upon the podcast, Chuks makes the following accusations:

  1. I problematized “Black love”
  2. I “justified the fact that (I) only date white women using long division”

Beyond the Hyphenated guest spot, Chuks made further accusations:

  1. I “derailed and decentered antiblackness”
  2. I argued for the revolutionary potential of dating white people.
  3. I accused lower-class black people of policing the identities of middle-class black people.

I will engage with the first two points, concerning the podcast, and then the last three posts as they likely require longer explication given that they do not rely upon anything more public than Chuks’ suppositions.

To address the first point, the problematizaion of Black Love, I would like to point to 28:00 to 30:10 on the podcast that Chuks is using. In this section I make the argument that the privileging of “black love” over all other kinds of love has the unintended side-effect of positioning the love between a black person and a non-black person as less “pure” or valuable than the idealized form of black love. To expand on this point, I am not against the concept of black love, rather, I am concerned that presenting black love as the most valuable form of loving relationship that a black person can attain introduces particular problems that result in the reproduction of hierarchies of domination.

In the two minutes I briefly spoke on how the valorization of black love can limit the possibilities of the people we can be attracted to. Given that the title of the podcast, “decolonial love,” drew upon Junot Diaz’s quotation that involved economies of attraction, an economy of attraction (or love) that privileges one form of love (or attraction) over all others is yet another economy of attraction that reproduces the domination/subjugation paradigm that decolonial love is intended to push back against. That is, to expand our economies of attraction in such a way that they do not resemble the economies of attraction put in place by white-supremacy is not to substitute “black love” for the privileging of relationships with whiteness. It is to recognize the unique ways in which we can come to love people across a broad spectrum of cultures and embodiments.

Put simply, I do not deny the possibility for black love to push back against the colonization of our economies of attraction: indeed, I think that is is necessary to practice black love if we are to truly decolonialize our economies of attraction. If we can reclaim our economies of attraction and push out the colonizing influences through the practice of black love, I see no problem with the promotion of Black love. If, as has been the current discourse, we are to substitute black love for colonized love, then we are reinstituting a structure of domination that argues for the inherent superiority of one manifestation of our economies of attraction over all others. Rather than engaging in the transformation of the situation that has resulted in the colonization of our economies of attraction, the substitution of Black love in place of the image of the colonizer is merely transposing the poles of domination.

While this might see to be a valuable outcome to some, a world where Black love is privileged, and other forms of love are less valorized, I do not think this is the outcome that Diaz has in mind. to decolonize love, in my view, is to have love that is not organized around ideals of oppression and domination. If we are to switch the poles of oppression, thereby making Black love the privileged form of love, then we begin to demand adherence to the ideal of black love, rather than practicing love that does not emerge from organization around ideals of oppression. Finally, I present this position not to argue for black/white interracial relationships, but to argue for the possibility of self-affirming, loving relationships across peoples of color. When I make a call for decolonial love, or love not organized around ideals of oppression, I am making a call to recognize the possibility of loving relationships between all groups of people.

In light of this, I can see how Chuks might interpret my statements as “long division” to justify dating white women, but this is only one of the possibilities that should emerge from what I am saying. If we view our economies of attraction as colonized, then we must come to understand that our perceptions of our attraction to other people of color are subject to colonial forces. to this end, we must consider the possibility that decolonial love means seeing other people of color as subjects worthy of our love, and not as subjects through the gaze of colonialism itself. Hence, when I state that switching the poles of colonialized love with Black love would result in the possibility of narrowing the range of subjects that we view as being worthy of our love, as Black love becomes the ideal, I am advocating that we expand our possibilities of love beyond the colonial gaze, and beyond an organization that treats one form of love as the most valuable.

Beyond this, at the 31:15 to 32:49 mark, I spoke briefly about the need to confront the problems within the black community before any push for the primacy of black love can be made. I should note that Chuks himself (and you can hear him on the podcast) offers vocal support for this argument. Put simply, in order for Black love to participate in the project of decolonial love, the community out of which it arises must deal with its own obstacles to love. In essence, as long as the black community has to deal with homophobia, misogyny, colorism, transphobia, and a whole host of other problematic ideologies, black love will be hard pressed to participate in a project of decolonial love. There is no way, in my mind, for a love manifested through misogyny and violence to be truly decolonial.

If we take the hallmarks of colonization to be a tendency towards domination, violence, and oppression, then we can argue that a cultural situation that articulates love through these modes cannot effectively generate decolonial love. What is being said here is that the social situation our of which love emerges must also be implicated in the colonization of love itself. If our social situation still bears the marks of our colonization, so too will our love, and valorized black love is no exception. While this may seem like a global indictment of all loving relationships between black people, this is not the point that I am trying to advance. What I am pointing to is are cultural patterns reflective of the colonization of black people. That is, we reproduce the forms of domination that were enacted upon us through our loving relationships.

Were this not the case, there would not be volumes of literature written by women much more talented than I about the ways in which Black men exercise misogyny upon black women within the context of loving relationships. We would have no need of the bell hooks quote, which Chuks deploys later, “there can be no love where there is domination,” which is prescient given hooks’ concern with the misogyny exercised by black men. hooks, like I, is pointing to a cultural pattern, as opposed to condemning the whole of loving relationships within the black community. I would suggest hooks “All About Love” as a primer to this form of thought. to conclude the point, if the project of decolonial love is to be successful, there is a need to ensure that the people practicing decolonial love are not themselves reenacting the dominant behaviors of the colonizing oppressors.

At the 35:53 to 38:04 mark, this discussion is taken up among myself, the other guest speaker, the co-host, and Chuks. What emerges is a recognition of the difficulty of decolonial love in a context where black men are socialized to approach black women in modes that align with violence. One of the statements made, “maybe because you’re trying to break down the wall,” where the wall refers to the black woman in question, “with a sledgehammer,” illustrates the position aptly. Black men, in some respects, have been socialized to engage with black women in modes that do not respect their personhood, which is the thing that I was pointing out in the example given that led to the discussion. Now, the counter argument would be “not all black men,” to which I can only appeal to cultural patterns rather than a universalization. The thing with patterns of culture is that they need not be universal: individual members within a culture need not fit the pattern, thereby becoming outliers. However, a cultural pattern does indicate a particular trajectory. Given the response of the other speakers on the podcast, my observation was not far off base.

At this point, I believe I can lay to rest the arguments of my “antiblackness” where decolonial and black love are concerned. However, I would like to say this: in order to treat my statements as problematic in the way that Chuks does, it requires an ideological structure that demands blackness be placed at the center of every conversation regarding race. This, as I have state before, is not only centering blackness, it is giving primacy to the black experience of racism over all other experiences of racism, thereby ensuring that they are either subordinate or merely extensions of antiblack racism. Taking this position comes with the implication that eliminating antiblack racism would eliminate the subordinate or dependent forms of racism, and therefore all energies should be directed towards this goal, regardless of the individual goals of other groups.

Point 2, the justification of “only dating white women” through “long division,” is an interesting claim to make, especially given that I have not discussed my romantic life (such that it is) with Chuks. The closest thing to a discussion of it within the podcast comes at the 38:50 to 40:37 mark, where I present an anecdote about Black men dating white women as a result of heir presence in certain areas of society. Careful listeners will note that I refute the point by presenting the small amount of black men in my department (0.06%, for a statistic) who were with black women at the time. My argument ran that both social environment (which Chuks agreed with) and personal choice come into play when we are discussing the pairing of black men with white women, and it is something worth considering. Kari’s expansion on my point is actually much better than my own presentation when she presents the fact that black women’s college attendance rates do not mean automatic access to the upper echelons of society.

Here, I can see where Chuks is deriving his second point, but this runs counter to what I am saying in the podcast: I do not buy the social setting argument entirely, but I do accept that it has an impact on the available range of people one wishes to be involved with. Given Chuks’ lack of knowledge about my love life (or lack there of), I am concerned how he reads into my presentation of an example for discussion my own preference in romantic partners, especially when I offer support for Chuks’ own point at the 44:16 to 45:40 mark on that podcast. To clarify: I recognize the possibility of a social setting that has a limited presence of Black women as a factor in Black men of a certain social standing ending up with white women; on the other hand, I also recognize Chuks’ point where in there is a sense of personal agency involved with the selection of romantic partners. To this end, my position is one of both/and, and not either or: personal agency may be limited by social factors, and social factors do not necessarily have to be barriers to a plurality of romantic partners.

More seriously, not once did my romantic partnerships become a subject of discussion within the podcast: if there is any long division involved, it is on the part of Chuks’ interpretation of my statements to imply justification for apparently dating only white women. How he could come to this conclusion about my love life, without actually discussing my love life with me, is something that I cannot explain; however, listening to the podcast will reveal that the conversation never turned towards my own experiences in dating: this was by my own choosing. I did not feel that my own situation was one worthy of consideration within the context of our discussion, however, I might hazard a theory as to how Chuks comes to his point.

At 44:15, I say “having spent almost a decade in a place where I am .06 of the total population population, I can also see the counter-argument,” which was followed up by the rebuttal that I outline above. To note, I have spent a lot of time in a predominantly white space in the whitest corner of Illinois, but this has not stopped me from having relationships across racial and social lines, nor has it resulted in the continued colonization of my economies of attraction. In fact, being in a predominantly white space and doing the kind of work that I am doing has allowed me to critically interrogate the kinds of people I desire, why I desire them, and whether or not these desires are the products of colonization. Put simply, if I was to live the kind of philosophy I am teaching and articulating, I needed to do the hard work of self-interrogation, and it is a constant process. This is a place where it might have been possible to argue that I was using “long division” to justify dating only white women, if he had proof that I only date white women: he does not, and I am not going to open up my personal life to prove him wrong.

It is at this point that I wish to attend to the three points that are not related to the decolonial love podcast: decentering antiblackness, the revolutionary potential of dating white people, and identity politics. I will admit that I sent asks to the podcast with regards to these issues (as well as critiquing the mental illness in PoC communities one), however, these were after the decolonial love podcast and at the behest of both cohosts. In the interest of self-disclosure, I received one message from Chuks asking me to direct “these kinds of questions” to his co-host, and this was (as I later learned) after the two of them had the conflict that resulted in their decision to end the podcast. To this end, up to the point where the two hosts had their falling out, I was operating in line with the requests of both the hosts to point out places where they could improve or where I thought they were lacking. It should be noted that Chuks does not position my asks about other forms of mental illness within PoC communities, or other forms of abuse within PoC communities among his examples of my problematic asks.

Now, the only way my ideological position can be taken as decentering blackness is in comparison to an ideological position that takes all other forms of racial discrimination and white-supremacist violence as subordinate and dependent upon antiblackness. This is Chuks’ argument for antiblackness as the fulcrum of white-supremacy. What Chuks misses is that fulcrum is the point around which a lever pivots: if antiblackness is a fulcrum, then it must be acknowledged that different groups are moved differently. We might also take it to be the case that fulcrum is not meant in the literal sense, but the metaphorical sense as something central to the activity of racism and white-supremacy. Antiblackness, then, becomes the primary element in all experiences of white-supremacist violence, and becomes the thing that needs to be “fixed” in order to end the ongoing violence against other communities of color.

I find this problematic because it demands that other groups experiences of oppression be treated as dependent upon the black experience of oppression and therefore subordinate. To this end, the racism experienced by other people of color is less valid, in the sense that it does not play a central role in the way that racism operates in the American context. To this end, other non-black people of color are obligated to come to the assistance of Black people in their time of struggle because their own racism is dependent upon the racism experienced by black people, yet black people have no obligation to come to their aid because the issues facing black people will always be primary. I can see how one could come to this position through a combination of lived experience and the hypervisibility of antiblackness, but I do not think that this is the case. More over, I do not think that a praxis with this kind of theoretical basis is sustainable for eradicating white-supremacy.

Given this position that Chuks holds, any position that does not recognize the dependent and subordinate place of the racism experienced by non-Black people of color automatically decenters antiblackness and contributes to the violence facing black people. So, when Chuks accuses me of decentering antiblackness, he is right, and I will admit it. I believe that the different experiences of racism and the way white-supremacy changes its approach when dealing with other people of color demands that we treat each instance of racism against other people of color as different from antiblackness, especially given the different racial histories of people of color in America. While white-supremacy might have perfected oppression on black bodies, the exercise of oppression varies from group to group, person to person, and this means our means of combating it must also vary as well. Thus, antiblackness cannot be the sole focus of every move to combat racism in the American context: we need different foci for different groups.

Finally, in an increasingly interconnected world, antiblackness cannot take exclusive priority over all other forms of racism. To do so would imply that black people and the black community exist in isolation to other groups, especially if the call for the primacy of antiblackness is articulated through the subordination of other groups’ oppression to structures of antiblackness. The interconnected nature of the world demands that we come to recognize the validity of other experiences of white-supremacist violence within their own unique racial context. In so doing, we can build authentic pathways to solidarity without demanding one group be the focus of all our efforts. I would say, on this point, I am not “decentering antiblackness” but I am giving equivalent priority to other struggles: if one wanted to say that I am doing anything, “deprioritizing antiblackness” might be better.

It is interesting to note that this approach, of recognizing the validity of other struggles alongside antiblackness, is one that is favored by Angela Davis, Martin Luther King Jr., and WEB Dubois among others. though DuBois’ call for African-Americans to take up arms with the Japanese in World War II is extremely problematic, much of his (and Davis’ and King’s) rhetoric is directed at recognizing the way in which all of these structures of oppression emerge from white-supremacy, and not merely antiblackness, and thus coalition building and solidarity are necessities if any elimination of oppressive structures is to be completed. As someone who appears to be extremely involved with activism work, I imagine that Chuks might benefit from reviewing what these figures have had to say about solidarity. DuBois might be particularly interesting since he, like Chuks, advocates for a centrality of antiblackness but does not do so at the exclusion of the possibility of solidarity with other groups.

The second of the non-podcast related accusations is with regards to the revolutionary possibility of dating white people. Yes I fucking said it, so what? Allow me to clarify: one of my mentors, a white man who teaches Philosophy of Race, Philosophy of Liberation, and Philosophy of Economics with special reference to economic oppression of Black people, would not be who he is without the loving relationship that he had with a black woman, or the deep friendships that he has had with black people. In his words, he could not be friends with these people and still maintain any view that legitimized their suffering. Thus, if we want to stretch the meaning of love to include friendship, a lot of our white allies would not be allies without the love that exists in a friendship relationship with people of color. So, this isn’t just about dating white people, it is about the possibility of transformative personal connections with people we would call oppressors. And this is a point that Paulo Ferire makes very clear: an oppressor coming to consciousness and acting as an ally is radical form of love, and cannot exist without love in the first place.

I am sure that Chuks will produce the ask in question, which likely contains a simplified version of the above, so allow me to be more clear: our relationships, both romantic and platonic, can be ground for acts of “conversion” in the sense that Freire indicates because of the presence of love between the two individuals. In so far as love is an affective tie to another person, an investment in their own well-being, it is possible to use that connection to expand the perspective of the oppressor in question. Now, I position this as “revolutionary” because we so often think of dragging allies to consciousness by force, as opposed to through an act of compassion, and this is not without problems or pain. As anyone who has been in a relationship with someone who has not come to consciousness (of anything) can attest, it hurts more when someone you care about cannot be brought into consciousness of oppression. This is not a call to go out and make friends with every oppressor one encounters, but to suggest that there exists the possibility of transformation through love.

Now, given Chuks’ political choice about his dating life (see 51:00 on the decolonial love podcast) it is pretty simple to see why this would constitute a failure on my part. From the perspective of someone who has chosen not to date outside of his race for political reasons (and I respect this decision) the extremes to which Chuks takes this, and his own ideological position demands the impossibility of love being a revolutionary force, or the revolutionary possibilities of loving relationships with people who could be oppressors. In light of this, I can see why he presents my argument for the possibility of revolutionary love is something that he would find extremely problematic. to be fair, there are problems with articulating this as a possibility as it does place a degree of onus upon the oppressed person as teacher. I recognize this limitation and am working through different authors (Freire, Ahmed, hooks, Davis, Alcoff) to think this through. How is it that oppressors come to consciousness through love, and why does love have this power? These are questions I’m asking.

The third accusation that Chuks makes is with regards to identity politics, which is a particularly difficult thing to engage with: I am less concerned with the politics of identity, and more concerned with how particular embodiments of blackness are more associated with whiteness and less with blackness. I take as valid the arguments made by many black people (male, female, trans, etc) of not finding a space within the overall black community, and am curious as to why there are so many of these experiences, and why are some thinkers committed to their marginalization. This is part in parcel of my concern that racism and white-supremacy must adapt their expressions to different ways of embodying blackness as the affective economies that enable the accretion of particular affects around the black body are subject to modification.

So, many of my questions regarding the politics of identity are directed in this vein: I am looking to recognize the complexity of blackness and black life in all of its fullness. And by fullness, I do not simply mean the organization of black life around resistance to white-supremacy, but how we as a people have disparate and distinct identities. In recognizing this, I believe that we can see how we are all black, but in different ways, and how these differences matter in terms of racism. For example, we can grant the validity of colorism and the privileging of light-skin, but we can also look at the way in which this privilege changes the kinds of racism that these people have to face. In recognizing  the validity of these different experiences, we can come to have a more comprehensive view of the multi-modal nature of racism.

One of the things that Chuks left out of his accusation is that the asks were addressed to him and his co-host in order to point out the way in which their collaboration might have left something out. The asks were intended to stimulate discussion surrounding the issues raised in the podcast, rather than to accuse Chuks or his co-host of something, given the stated mission of bridging lives of the podcast. To this end, I felt my questions would help build bridges were some were burned, or simply didn’t exist. One of the bridges that is still smouldering is across class divisions in the black community and between the black community and other people of color. Hence, at their behest, I sought to push them in that direction.

Like Chuks, I tend to avoid tumblr drama, and I have no idea why Chuks decided to devote an entire section in his reply to his problems with me, except to discredit any potential support for his co-host. If we are to be honest, Chuks never expressed to me, publicly or privately, any of the concerns that are outlined in that post, nor did he express to me the discomfort felt by some of his viewers at my commentary. Additionally, until Chuks directed me to send my asks to his co-host, I had no idea that he had any problems with my ideological perspective or my views. I have had conversations with his co-host regarding why he chose to include me in responding to her post, some of which have added clarity, but I would like to state that I have had nothing but cordial interactions with Chuks up to this point.

Having said that, I do not appreciate the way in which he has conducted himself following the conclusion of the Hyphenated podcast. While I recognize that personal problems often result in the ending of collaborative projects, the way in which he has engaged in behavior that many (including myself) have called abusive, and the extensive gaslighting he engaged in in his most recent post, lead me to be suspicious of his projects going forwards or at least the way he engages with others in similar collaborative works. Given the way in which he treated his co-host, I would be the first to express concern for any other individual that he chooses to work with. 

Finally, I believe that the ideological perspective that Chuks espouses is one that is inimical to projects of equality and transformation of the situation that enables oppression. His anti-solidarity stance, his privileging of the black experience of racism as the only experience worth engaging with, and his unwillingness to actually engage in dialogue and conversation, are among the most problematic elements that emerge in black academia. To this end, I believe that his ideological perspective, and any praxis derived from it, are ultimately unsustainable going forwards.

To - or not to - . . . that is the question

In this article, a woman tells of how her boyfriend did an absolute hellllll-no when she tried out hyphenating his last name with hers just to see how it looks and how it made her feel. The boyfriend believed that hyphenating their last names meant she was afraid of commitment.

She said:

There is no level-headed reason why a woman should have to abandon her family’s last name in order to prove her fidelity and allegiance to her man.

I agree.

I’m almost 100% sure that I’ll be hyphenating my last name when Jason and I get married, a few reasons being:

  • We’re all girls in this family, so there’s not really anyone to carry on our last name. Not sure yet if it’s something we’ll pass on to our kids.
  • I’m proud of my last name, and my whole name in general.
  • I like the sound of my name: Gephine Fernandez. It just flows off the tongue :)
  • And I like the ring of what it would be in the future: Gephine Fernandez-Tran.
  • Gephine Tran doesn’t quite have a ring to it by itself, and (maybe this is a weird reason?) since I’m mistaken enough already for being Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, Native American, etc.&whatnot, I want to keep Fernandez in my name to kinda signify that I am Filipino.

But anyway… thoughts? Do you think it matters whether or not women change or hyphenate (or even take on) their husbands’ last names?