social justice concerns

In case you missed issues B.A.P WAKE ME UP MV has touched on pt 2 cuz im trash and have been wheezing/crying the whole day fight me

Insecurities + Low Self Esteem/self-worth: shown through the girl with makeup around her and she soon tries to apply lipstick, only ending up smashing the mirror.
Murder/Shootings: The man waving his arms around as if conducting a musical piece until lights spark at his fingertips (like gunshots being fired) and then people dead surround him.
Anxiety/Depression/Mental Illness: The man in the bathroom, coiled up by the bathtub as he looks at his surroundings afraid of something, only to submerge himself into the water in his bathtub.
Illness in General/Suicidal thoughts or attempts: The girl who drinks down those pills as well as some other type of liquid can represent either illness in a physical aspect or portrays the attempt to suicide.
Eating Disorders/Hallucinations: The scene with the woman chopping veggies can allude to two different interpretations. Hallucinations as she almost eats a worm or it is the symbolic representation to express eating disorder.
Societal/Political Issues: The probably most iconic scene where the man is holding up a sign “Emotion Revolution”. This is representative of public demonstrations we see on the news today to fight for equal rights and social justice. The people passing by as if its nothing represent those who are unaware of the issues that surround them.
Revolution is starting to be achieved when these people who went through their own respective life problems come together to help ‘spread the awareness’. I guess you can say they, “wake up” into new ‘selves’, represented through celebration towards the end of the MV.

This isn’t even it. The MV is very diverse in nationality and they haven’t placed labels/stereotypical roles on these people according to the colour of their skin or where they came from. Each and every person was given a role that any human being would go through in their life because every human being is a human being despite race, colour, place of birth, gender, etc.

Not only did B.A.P create a song concerning social justice but they went even deeper this time. They went into mental illness, problems that we have as individuals at a personal level rather than just ‘society’ as a group. They looked into people in their variety and represented it through WAKE ME UP MV.

B.A.P aren’t just ‘kpop idols’. You probably thought I’d say “they don’t fit in the kpop category anymore.” No. This is something far bigger than just the music industry.

i think my “favorite” thing about the ah, mage situation, that conflict

is how people go “SEE, WHEN MAGES ARE LET OUT OF THE CIRCLES THEY ACT LIKE CHILDREN.” like, if you side with the mages in inquisition they get reprimanded for demanding things and whatever, told “ur our allies not our charges”

which is

so fucked up lmao

you stick these people in towers their entire lives, severely restrict their interactions with the outside world, you make it - so their entire lives are built around that kind of power dynamic? they’er built around having to demand and ask for things, and not having any ability whatsoever to do things for themselves. that’s! how! the circles! work!

if someone’s been raised - since they were 6 - 12 years old, or else raised in a chantry orphanage bc everyone knew they were a mage’s whelp anyway - what the fuck else do you expect from them. they have 0 context for how to exist in the outside world. of course they’re gonna be kind of weird and not good at shit initially. 

that’s what they’ve been taught and conditioned for their entire lives. that’s how they’ve been socialized. for them that’s how the world works. of course folks are allowed to be frustrated by it, too, but the narrative allows so little sympathy for those mages who have trouble adjusting or who don’t have any clue what it’s like bargaining as equals as opposed to people under strict and constant control/supervision. shit.

i’m so mad about the circles. 

If your social justice concerns are uniquely applicable to the characters/ships you personally dislike—and, in particular, those that get in the way of your ship or are antagonistic to your fave?

Then you’re not advocating for justice. You’re co-opting the language and causes of social justice for the same fandom wars that have gone on for centuries, and you’re a self-serving hypocrite. 

anonymous asked:

Do you find that most people who have the most to say against veganism are sjw? I always look at the blogs that add misinformed information(really annoying-never have sources) on posts about veganism and they always support human rights but never animals! Why do you think that is?

I don’t like that term, but I understand what you’re saying. Those engaged with issues of social justice often are the most aggressively anti-vegan, and I think that comes out of guilt. Veganism is entirely compatible with social justice politics, and in fact, is the only logical conclusion to those politics. Animal agriculture is responsible for vast harm to animals, humans and the planet, it drives species extinction, it perpetuates environmental racism and worker exploitation, it targets minority communities, is one of the key threats to indigenous populations, drives deforestation, has high energy use and contributes significantly towards world hunger. These are all issues the social justice is concerned with, and so to have a vegan tell them that they are contributing towards these issues makes many lash out.

The issue is that veganism requires more of people than just reblogging a gofundme page or calling out a sexist on tumblr, as important as both of those things are. It requires personal and radical change, many people just aren’t willing and so they find other excuses. That’s where this “no ethical consumption under capitalism so no point in trying” bullshit comes from, it’s an attempt to use social justice arguments to justify something which obviously and demonstrably goes against the movement’s own principles. Personally, I’m a vegan precisely because of my concern for social justice, and despite having some idea why it happens I never fail to be surprised and saddened when otherwise moral and socially aware people still defend and actively contribute towards an industry which perpetuates so much of what they claim to oppose.

when antis go doing their fake social justice warrior cry, just let me remind you that the first time I engaged an anti and she found out I was autistic she started saying things like, “you autistics always coming after me” and put all kinds of tags in her post insinuating just how much she despises people like me, and I will never forget that as being the moment I was determined not to block a single goddamn anti and face those motherfuckers head on. The moment I was called an “abuse apologist” after explaining that I myself have suffered as a sexual abuse survivor… the moment two integral parts of my identity were mocked and dismissed…

I was determined to keep my place firm in my beloved fandom.

Cause I’ll be damned if I’ll let a bunch of ableist, faux feminist pricks prevent me from enjoying my special interest the way I want to. I’ll be damned if they’re going to tell me how to experience and read my trauma “correctly.”

Bring it the fuck on, fandom gatekeepers.

I know a lot of people avoid antis bc you firmly believe fandom should be only about the fan fic and fan art for you and THAT IS FINE.

But for some of us it is MORE than that, because it is a battle we have to fight outside of fandom too.

It is ableism, it is people hijacking fake social justice concerns to manipulate. One minute they talk about caring for trauma and abuse, and the next they are being ableist and calling Kylo Ren a “psycho killer” and using very coded language to imply that people with mental illnesses/different neurotypes are dangerous and to be feared inherently. Or they are telling abuse victims in Reylo that we are fucked up for not reading a scene the way they want to force us to read it - they want to take away an abuse survivor’s agency and dictate how we see things.

I know a lot of people don’t all care about engaging antis, or think we shouldn’t engage them at all…

but for some people it goes beyond the surface level of fandom. We don’t all get to happily enjoy this fandom and be carefree. Some of us are fighting for visibility.

So… I hope you can understand my being so passionate in my defense of my meta and analysis.

Thanks Reylo fam <3

I am so disturbed by how willing people - particularly people on Tumblr - are to use serious social issues for personal gain. They take the time to learn about these issues, enough to talk about them in depth, but they are really just doing it to gain followers or internet fame, or to “prove” their opinions about fandom or celebrities. It trivializes these issues and I find that really concerning.

Social justice it’s just an extremely lazy, poorly thought-out way to explain the power dynamics in our current system. There are very few people with the majority of the wealth and power in western society. Those people use that wealth and power to manipulate governments to serve their own best interests. That’s an oligarchy, not a white supremacy or a patriarchy.

The overwhelming majority of people regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation have very little to no institutional power. Rather than recognizing that, social justice focuses on the fact that the majority of those in power are white and/or male. Then they infer that because of that fact all people who share a physical appearance with those in power must also have some sort of “privilege”, which is of course ridiculous. As I said before, the majority of people hold very little power.

As far as I’m concerned social justice is just a smoke screen for the people who are really pulling the strings. Rather than holding these individuals and our government officials (which are more concerned about their corporate donors than their constituency) to account, social justice would rather blame working class white men for all of their problems.

Screaming at some guy who lives paycheck to paycheck about his privilege isn’t going to fix anything. Adding a few more poc or women to the upper class isn’t going to make things any better for the majority of people. Holding the individual people with real power to account and taking power away from the incredibly rich is going to bring about a lot more change than anything social justice is advocating for. Collectivizing people based on their gender or skin color is just obfuscating real problems.

This is the result of the need to vent and put my frustration into words – even if it falls apart like most of my writing. Basically about intl k-fandom and its (sometimes sadly exploitative) social justice ventures. I honestly don’t want to stir drama or continue spreading the negative energy but this was just a little therapeutic thing to write so feel free to ignore! With my insecurity this will be deleted soon anyhow. What am I even doing?!?.

“Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient—dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restricting and having authority over the Orient.” – Edward Said, Orientalism

If I were to describe the issue I have with international kpop fandom (or to be more accurate, from my perspective in mostly Shinee fandom), this quotation would cover it. Oftentimes, kpop fandom is a community that shows love towards their idol group(s), passionately expressing and promoting their unadulterated love for the music, dance, and people – despite the obvious barriers from language and distance. In my naivety, I used to think, this is a benefit of globalization, the sharing and acceptance of different cultures. However, as more time passed, it pained me to find that no, the situation is not as ideal as I had imagined.

Instead, what I found is that the divide still exists: “the us” vs. “the other” mentality.

To be short, much of international fandom is only there to consume the parts of Korea they desire, the romanticized image portrayed in kpop and kdramas. That is when fandom is ready to show affection and attachment to Korean culture. But, when other parts of culture (deep culture – cue the iceburg diagram folks!) appear, something that is likely not familiar to a “Western” perspective and no longer dealing with surface level fetishizations of Asians, such as Korean beauty standards, the valuing of the group over the individual, or the relationship that exists between different East Asian ethnicities, that is when international fandom plays the distance card. No longer are they the kpop fan, but the rational and objective (and implicitly superior) person passing judgement on how this other culture should be, how it should function. Beyond being blatant ethnocentrism, this behaviour of choosing when to embrace and detach from a culture serves the very function of Orientalism (well maybe a bit of a modern twist on it), placing Western society as the more civilized and ethical culture over those in East Asia.

Moving on from my theoretical babbling and placing it in a more lived scenario, international fandom often wonders why Korean fandom and media (usually but not always) ignores their demands for change. It is because of this reason – because most of the time (I have seen beautiful exceptions of course, but not often enough) international fandom pushes for change through a lens of perceived cultural authority: My western reasoning and logic, which I take as universal, is the right way and yours is wrong. How many times have I seen international fans argue “you can’t use Korean culture as an excuse”? Then may I counter argue, why are you allowed to erase the cultural reasoning of another population while yours receives the privilege of remaining perfectly intact? To be perfectly blunt, this behaviour is a similar replication of the American government sticking their nose into other countries’ businesses and trying to act as the police of the world. There is little or no effort in trying to understand another culture, yet the magical assumption is that somehow the right is granted to be involved in change for that culture. Please then, don’t be surprised if Koreans don’t respond the way you want (or other cultures for that matter).

But hey, does that mean other cultures should be untouchable and that international fandom shouldn’t be involved in addressing problematic issues? No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I would hope could take place is a respectful dialogue. For all the pretense of those in fandom who claim to take an educated stance, what should be a part of that is critical thinking (oh gods yeah I’m going there). What being critical means isn’t tearing apart another side to bits; what it means is researching and understanding multiple perspectives and comparing them with your own – and only once that information is gathered and synthesized, do you take a stance. And even then, you still negotiate that stance once you have engaged another person in dialogue. It’s troubling when I read so many social justice posts concerning Koreans and immediately think, this person has never spoken to a Korean person in their life (or even an East Asian who might be a little more familiar with those issues that can touch more broadly on East Asian culture). Honestly, again, how can you demand change of a culture when you don’t even involve the very people of that culture?

I would include a little organized paragraph here about how during a dialogue, one must also consider paradigm shifts, which are changes in thinking that are initially met by a stage of discomfort to confusion to change in reasoning to acceptance of new knowledge – and that these take time – and that you’ve been allowed this time to formulate your own values and must allow the proper time for others to accept unfamiliar ways of thinking and to not forcefully push just because your reasoning isn’t immediately accepted – But I’m too tired.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on long enough and understand that I probably haven’t been the most coherent and that even I may have to negotiate my own perspective in this post based on feedback and information as it comes – but I just wanted to end on a bit of a reality check too. I offered dialogue as a solution and realize it isn’t an easy task (it’s easier than approaching overriding systems though, which really should be targeted but again far out of steam to explain). But it is the respectful and engaging method and hey, unfortunately you’re going to be rejected more than once but that’s just the reality of these things.

tl;dr: If you are going to pass judgement and place demands on Koreans from a one-sided ethnocentric view (yes believe it or not your western view is not universal), dismissing and disregarding their perspective, do not expect an ounce of respect or consideration. Oh and realize behaving that way can be just as problematic or damaging to cultures (and people) other than your own.

there’s an interesting irony how big parts of tumblr social justice is allegedly concerned with fighting oppression, racism and imperialism. yet, much of the social justice discourse here is actually pretty much a cesspool of US (cultural) imperialism. it even kind of mirrors US foreign policy because people speak over others and impose US constructs on non-US issues all the time because they think they know best and must save us from ourselves or something. 

Traditional Catholic Mass..

There are so many urban legends that circulate in the Catholic blogosphere, and I don’t have the time to write the book it would take to rebut them. But concerning Vatican Council II and the “New Mass” (Ordinary Form), let me just make a few historical notes for the benefit of the Catholic Tumblr community. These are taken from conversations I had with my seminary liturgy professor. 

My professor was actually at Vatican II. These are some things he pointed out.

–The Catholic bishops met between 1962 and 1965.

–They did not meet every day for the whole year. Each session of Vatican II took place at St. Peter’s in Rome, in the months of October, November, and the beginning of December.

–Before flying to Rome, and after leaving Rome in December, each bishop received packages in the mail with huge stacks of documents to be studied and discussed later at the council.

–The bishops gathered in St. Peter’s basilica, which had an excellent sound system set up with microphones so that bishops could make interventions and comments during the council presentations and talks.

–The seating was like a stadium, with sections. There was a section for Protestant observers. They had no microphones and were not allowed to speak, at all, to the gathered bishops–only listen.

–Bishops could visit with, an interact with, the Protestants, before or after the working day of speeches and presentations. But during Vatican II, no Protestant ever spoke, even once, to the Catholic bishops, or voted, even once, on anything published at Vatican II.

–Besides the Protestant “auditores” (observers) there was another section for the Catholic nuns who were invited to be “auditrices” (female observers). These were women from the major religious orders.

–It never occurred to the Catholic bishops to ever allow the Sisters to speak or give input. Like the Protestants, they had no microphones.

–We find it bizarre, but in those days people took it for granted that a Church Council was for Catholic bishops to give input at, and everyone else was to be quiet, to be seen and not heard, even Catholic Sisters who did at least 50% or more of all the Catholic apostleship.

–My professor knew impeccable Latin and French. So, as the council bishops spoke in Latin, he would be facing the Protestant observers, who had earphones on their heads and would have everything translated to them in French. He had help from other translators who worked during Vatican II.

–A few Catholic bishops were stubborn and refused to speak in Latin, but spoke in French instead, which was considered something of an international language at the time.

–There were lots of nice dinners and parties throughout Rome during the Council. The bishops liked to have nice social dinners LOL. Many of the bishops interacted with the Protestant observers, who were all scholars and very educated theologians in their own churches.

–Fr. Hans Kung was making a lot of money from his liberal books and articles. He bought an expensive sports car and drove around Rome showing it off, along with his flashy new suits. So much for liberal priests always being into poverty and social justice.

–Concerning the Mass, my professor said it was only the Tridentine Mass recently edited by St. John XXIII in 1962.

–My professor would laugh when people would speak of the “liberal Mass of Vatican II” since they did not realize that the only Mass at Vatican II was the Latin, Tridentine Mass. 

–Everything at Vatican II, prayers, ceremonies, speeches, were conducted in Latin, except for the few times a bishop would insist on speaking in French. One bishop who spoke only in French was Armenian Cardinal, Greg Agagianian.

–After the 1962 session, the bishops called for a “thorough reform” of the rites. All of these bishops had grown up only with Latin and the rituals from the Council of Trent. But they believed that the Mass and sacraments needed an updating by 1962.

–A “Consilium” was set up during Vatican II. It was a liturgical commission for studying the Mass and Sacraments with a view to reforming them.

Now, this is where it gets tricky. In the traditionalist Catholic blogosphere, people speak of Protestants observing, and then giving input. That’s where you get that famous black and white photo of Pope Paul VI allegedly meeting with Protestants who “helped put together the Novus Ordo.”

What is lost is this. First of all, the “Novus Ordo” is not from Vatican II. The Novus Ordo did not go into effect until November of 1969, four years after Vatican II had already disbanded.

We must make a distinction between the COUNCIL, and the CONSILIUM. Yes, there were Protestants at the Vatican Council. NO, there were no Protestants on the Consilium.

The Consilium, or commission for drafting new liturgical texts, was composed of bishops and priest scholars who had been writing about the liturgy for decades. It only met a few times a year in Rome. 

The members all had full time jobs and did not have time to be in Rome having meetings all the time. Mostly, each guy worked from his home location. They were all priests. No lay people. No nuns. And absolutely NO PROTESTANTS.

Again, Vatican II had Protestant “observers.” The Consilium’s members were only Catholic bishops and priests. Clear? Capisce?

The rest of the year, documents circulated among members and were then sent with revisions to Rome, where priests working in the Vatican began writing or putting together new rituals based on the Consilium suggestions and the suggestions of bishops/Cardinals who were not on the Consilium, but were still consultors.

The Consilium members had all studied the Missals and Sacramentaries of the Ancient Church and early Medieval Catholicism. While keeping many of the Tridentine prayers from the Traditional Latin Mass, they also incorporated texts from the Ambrosian, Gelasian, Leonine, and other ancient texts of the liturgy.

So, it is not historically true that the Novus Ordo was made up, on the spot, and out of thin air. Even the rumors that some prayers were made up in the cafes of Rome would not be accurate, because the Consilium carefully documented the sources for the prayers of the Missal. 

For instance, Eucharistic Prayer III which was supposedly invented out of thin air was composed by Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini in the 1940′s, and was circulated and discussed by bishops even before Vatican II. Eucharistic Prayer II which was supposedly composed at a cafe in Rome can easily be seen as originating from the prayers of St. Hippolytus in the 2nd and 3rd century of Rome. Let us repeat again that in the Ordinary Form, there are still many, many prayers lifted out of the Missal of Pius V.

Besides the debates between scholars regarding the Ordinary Form, we have a record of numerous cardinals and bishops who wrote in after they received the huge draft copies in the mail. The bishop of my diocese, Aloysius Willinger, used to speak of comments and input he gave back in the mid-60′s when he would get draft copies from the Consilium.

The canard about the Roman Missal of Paul VI being used by Protestants is simply laughable and preposterous. There was not one, single Protestant denomination that adopted the New Mass. The language of “offertory” and the Latin “offerimus” found throughout the Novus Ordo in Latin was found to be extremely objectionable. 

For all the talk that the Novus Ordo has “no sense of sacrifice” the Protestant theologian Max Thurian made very clear that in Protestantism, nothing is “offered” to God. That, he said, is Catholic theology of the Mass as propitiatory sacrificed “offered to God.”

Protestant theology insists that the only offering given to God was given by Jesus at the Cross. Therefore, even the supposedly watered down language of the Novus Ordo presupposes with “offering” that we are making a sacrifice to God.

Such language contradicts clearly the teaching of the Protestant Reformers, who said that at worship we can praise God, thank Him through Jesus, and repent of sin. But in no way can Protestant liturgy accept the idea that at worship, we “offer” anything for we are nothing and Christ is alone the One who offers sacrifice to His Father.

Hopefully, this gives the Tumblr Catholic community a sense of how to see the traditionalist accusations of Paul VI. I hate to say it, but it is now a given that anything quoted from Paul VI or Consilium head, Annibale Bugnini, has to be taken with a grain of salt and vetted to see if there is any accuracy to the quote. Quite a few juicy traditionalists quotes are practically made up out of thin air, if not a complete distortion of the words of Paul VI and Bugnini.

anonymous asked:

Thought on "SJW" matters: We need a concept of "safe harbor" for people who are well-intentioned and non-aggressive. Like.. I try to give everyone a fair shake, I'm never intentionally racist or sexist, I try to be kind to people I encounter, so.. can that please be enough to keep me safe from attack? I gather I may still subtly contribute to harmful social dynamics but.. can we work on that peaceably? Basically "Don't scream at Granny for saying 'Orientals', she means well." What do you think?

Yeah. I was thinking about this recently after reading a story about how the guy who covered some of the Missouri U protests and exposed their hostility to the media was invited to speak to an atheist group. Audience members (primarily black) demanded he stay on stage and respond to their concerns, then heckled him with hostile questions and accusations of racism. He was clearly really upset about this, and protested that he had autism, was experiencing sensory overload, and if they didn’t let him leave he was going to start crying, to which audience members started heckling him about “white tears”.

The atheist blogosphere is now reporting about this in the context of how white people are selfish and entitled for privileging their own emotional state over the legitimate concerns of people of color, and how “white atheists” are the big problem of the atheist movement. See for example Thin Skins And Male Tears: The Tragedy Of White Atheism, although JT at least seems to be a little concerned.

And the problem is that this seems to happen all the time in movement atheism, to the point where you pretty much expect it at any movement-atheism-associated- conventions or meetups or blogs. Anybody who sets foot anywhere near it is putting themselves at serious risk of this kind of treatment, and if you protest it you get an avalanche of “lol white tears you need to recognize your own ignorance and entitlement” and that’s that. And avoiding movement atheism isn’t too hard, and is probably a good idea anyway, but now it’s starting to spread to colleges, and those seem kind of important in case people want to learn stuff.

And *I* solve this mostly by not leaving my room, figuratively and sometimes literally, but I’m not sure what the effective movement-building solution would be. Like at some point I feel like the only way to have a movement where anyone at all can feel safe is to hang up a big “NO SOCIAL JUSTICE ALLOWED” sign in front of the door.

The problem is, there really are a lot of okay social justice people who are concerned about inequalities but don’t do this kind of thing. I know Ozy doesn’t like being called “one of the good SJWs”, but the fact is they wouldn’t heckle an autistic person to cry and then gloat about “white tears”. I know a lot of great people with an interest in social justice, but I’m not sure how to protect people from the terrible ones without just hanging the big sign in front of the door. “SOCIAL JUSTICE IS OKAY UNLESS YOU’RE TERRIBLE” only works when people can all agree on who is or isn’t being terrible, which is apparently a problem far beyond the abilities of movement atheism.

Also, the thing I wrote about before where trying too hard to protect yourself from the bullies on the left makes you a honeypot for all the bullies on the right, and then you get overwhelmed by them.

So far the only thing I’ve ever seen that works is just to make some vague anti-social-justice noises loud enough to let the bullies know they won’t have enough support for it to be worth their while, but not so loud that it scares people away, and definitely not so loud that everyone assumes your movement is made of Nazis and the actual Nazis try to join you on account of thinking you’re a kindred soul. But this is a frustrating and draining tightrope to walk and one that’s easy to slip up on.

My first possible reason for optimism is that people have become better at a kind of critical analysis of these issues recently and eventually “social justice person who isn’t terrible” might become clearly defined enough to serve as a natural category. My second reason is that as more and more people become turned off by this kind of thing it may be easier to make it clear that you don’t tolerate this sort of thing and still attract mostly decent people and not just crazies.

On the Grant Twitter Fiasco Today

Grant isn’t perfect and I don’t mean to sound like his stan, but he’s honestly more socially aware than people in this fandom give him credit for. I respect that he acknowledged his privilege and explained that he is still learning to the extent that he doesn’t feel he is eloquent or knowledgable enough to Tweet about social justice concerns as much as people might expect him to because of his status. I don’t think he deserves the attacks that come his way, especially when he has a history of sharing other people’s words on issues of gun control, racially motivated police brutality, refugee relief, etc. He has said that he feels more comfortable promoting the words of others versus his own, which I think is pretty respectable.

As a personal example, I remember after the Paris attacks last year, Syrian refugees and Muslims alike were considered scum and it seemed as though everyone chose to marginalize innocent victims of war who were trying to flee violence for a better life. I have to say among all the hatred, racism, and xenophobia I was seeing on my Twitter feed, it was touching to see a Tweet from Grant urging people to donate to Syrian refugees as well as Tweets criticizing the inevitable wave of Islamophobia that followed. I know he shouldn’t be applauded for doing the decent and right and expected thing, but I still appreciated it in the storm of horrible things that were being said about Muslims and Syrians that I considered so hurtful.

I’m just trying to convey that I don’t think he’s a bad person as some fans are making him out to be. He’s still learning, as all of us are. We have to stop demonizing and attacking people whenever they make mistakes out of ignorance or unawareness and give them the opportunity to apologize and learn from that mistake, otherwise people’s mindsets will never change and they will never unlearn their biases.

nanny notes/thinking about privilege and school

I nanny for a family whose kids go to a “waldorf-inspired” pre-school, and the other day the mom was talking to me about it, and i told her how dreamy jasmine’s waldorf schooling seemed (beeswax! knitting! writing your own textbooks! semi-pagan rituals!) compared to my own (which was half parochial and half public), and she said this thing about how kids just don’t learn creative thinking skills in public school, which i disagree with, so i said what i thought was a pretty diplomatic thing, that i think it depends on the school and the teacher and what you do with kids outside of school, and she had to leave before we could finish the conversation, so i wonder if she thought i was offended and if she’ll bring it up when i see her today; she’s a counselor and very sensitive and thorough. 

Keep reading

Today Jessica Valenti said that marijuana has no negative impact on society, compared to alcohol, mainly because now that marijuana is legalized in Colorado there are fewer drunk driving fatalities in Colorado specifically. Her suggestion is for women to smoke more weed. Over a hundred thousand people have been reported killed in the “war on drugs” in the Western Hemisphere, many (most?) of whom are women, before even beginning to account for women murdered as a result of related border politics and the same US imperialism that leads us to demand that central America produce and export our recreational drugs. Something like thirty thousand people are in prison on marijuana charges (alone) in the US and the vast majority of them are black and latina/o–it”s common to hear that marijuana arrests are three or four times as likely for black people than white people (or eight times more likely in D.C, for example) but black people are on average ten times more likely than white people to go to prison over it. If you ever needed a snappy example of white feminism I think “there are no societal risks linked to marijuana” oughta work.

intersections between social work and experimental writing, writing them, feeling problematic

i THINK it is possible to talk about working in the Helping Professions (“professional”) without falling into gross savior cliches, i think it is possible to write about the intersections between personal trauma and “working with people” without “making it about yourself,” i think it is possible to take on privilege without sounding like a self-involved punk scriptedly “owning their privilege” to get social justice points; i think it is important and good to talk about professional boundaries and how/why they fail or don’t work without calling a person “soft” or “burned out”; i think it’s possible to write “about” these “issues” in a way that also takes on problems within feminism? 

Keep reading

is there a secret code for grown queers to give to kid queers that means, like, i see you, are you okay, can i help you 

trick question, no

that’s why it’s really vitally important that INSTITUTIONS ARE VISIBLY ACTIVELY SUPPORTIVE OF QUEER PEOPLE so their staff/volunteers/interns/faculty feel like it’s safe to be visible/vocal so the kid queers know that they know grown queers

things i see people get really mad about every day:

  • having to speak up for people who can’t hear or understand them well
  • having to speak slowly or rethink the way they might say something because the person they are talking to doesn’t speak the same language in the same way that they do
  • having to use written language to communicate with someone who can’t communicate verbally
  • having to use verbal language to communicate with somebody who can’t communicate with written language
  • having to wait in line behind somebody who moves slow
  • having to wait in line behind somebody who accidentally cut in line because they have cognitive issues and didn’t realize how the line worked