I don’t think the comment “bisexuals have straight privilege unless they’re in lesbian relationships” makes any more sense than saying “lesbians have straight privilege while they’re single”. This makes the assumption that all bisexuals who are single or in opposite-sex relationships actively hide their sexual orientation.
If a gay woman keeps her sexual identity secret while she’s single in order to avoid discrimination, we don’t accuse her of co-opting straight privilege – we sympathize with her for feeling the need to closet herself. So why the double standard for bisexuals?
It might not apply to you, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t straight-looking femme lesbians, or androgynous-looking, rainbow-wearing, alternative-haircut-having bisexuals. My point is that that comment oversimplifies and overgeneralizes things in a way that seems unreasonable to me.
“We all want our kids to learn about consent. We want them to know that no means no and only an enthusiastic yes means yes. But I think one of the things we might be missing is that we’ve been undermining the idea of consent since they were very young.”—
“Stevie Nicks was the first woman I ever heard say she had chosen not to have children because she cared more about her career. The first that ever warned me men might not like it if there are things more important to me than they are. The first that ever said that that was fine: sometimes, you have to leave them behind. Wherever she goes, she surrounds herself with girls. “I can’t imagine you in a bathing suit,” someone says in an interview for Rolling Stone, when Stevie says she likes to play in the pool in her backyard. “Yeah, well, you never will,” Stevie says. “There is never - ever - a man in the backyard. If there is, he is banished to the front of the house.” Men don’t get to look at Stevie Nicks unless Stevie Nicks wants men to look at Stevie Nicks. In her songs, even when she’s talking about how she has to change, she proclaims her power, her ability, her worth. She is a queen, she is a witch, she is a dragon, she is in control. She isn’t polite. She’s competitive. She’s bossy. She claimed all the things the men around her claimed — she spent as much money as they spent, had as much sex as they had, was as reckless as they were, stood at the front of the same stage — and never questioned that that was her right. The world tells us women are there for men, but despite all the boyfriends and the jokes about how she’s so easy and the sex-symbol status, she isn’t there for men at all. She does it without ever giving in to the men that dismiss her. She’s emotional. She’s dramatic. She raises her voice as much as she can. She thinks she’s pretty, she thinks she’s a star, and when her fans crowd up to the edge of the stage, crazy, she welcomes them, with open arms. She revels in it. She’s too much of a girl for you? She revels in it.”—Stevie Nicks is a queen, a witch, a dragon
If you are a man who thinks it’s funny to make misogynist jokes purely to make your female friends uncomfortable/angry, then you are a misogynist. It is not “just a joke.” You literally are finding humor in the discomfort and dehumanization of women. You are not helping, you are not making satire. You are just being misogynist.
“One year my colleagues David and Carole were preparing a skit on abuse for a conference, and they decided to perform a rehearsal for their abuser group. Afterward, the group members rapid-fired their suggestions for improving the skit, directing them mostly at David: “No, no, you don’t make excuses for why you’re home late, that puts you on the defensive, you’ve got to turn it around on her, tell her you know she’s cheating on you….. You’re staying too far away from her, David. Take a couple of steps toward her, so she’ll know that you mean business…. You’re letting her say too much. You’ve got to cut her off and stick to your points.” The counselors were struck by how aware the clients were of the kinds of tactics they use, and why they use them: In the excitement of giving feedback on the skit, the men let down their facade as “out-of-control abuser who doesn’t realize what he’s doing.”—
“Why Does He Do That” by Lundy Bancroft (via bajo-el-mar)
Fun History Fact: The overwhelming majority of cowboys in the U.S. were Indigenous, Black, and/or Mexican persons. The omnipresent white cowboy is a Hollywood studio concoction meant to uphold the mythology of white masculinity.
I will always re-blog this
Hence why they’re called cowBOY. “Boy” was a common title/nickname for men of color (usually black men) used as a way to demean and infantilize them.
all that’s happening is that beauty companies have realized that “progressive” and “empowering” advertisements garner more publicity and create more brand loyalty than the old-fashioned “you’re ugly if you don’t buy our product” advertising. it has nothing to do with ethical capitalism or social trends. the beauty industry is just trying to make money.
Today a boy actually told me that the fact that I date girls is a real turn-off for guys and that I will never find a boyfriend. He was being entirely serious and I don’t think I’ve ever laughed in someone’s face so hard.
I’m actually concerned for boys who complain about how different girls look without makeup. Like did you think eyeshadow permanently alters a girls eyelid? Are you frightened when people change clothes
straight women who casually use the word “girlfriend” to refer to their platonic lady friends, i have nothing against you, but you make the world really confusing,
I love this because it means that just a little, heteronormativity has decreased
i think a woman who would never say “boyfriend” to refer to a platonic male friend using the word “girlfriend” for a platonic female friend and assuming everyone will know it is a non-romantic relationship evidently by very nature of it being between two women is actually kind of the definition of heteronormativity
Remember when Noah’s screenwriter explained that everyone in his movie was white because it was “mythical,” and because white people are apparently universal stand-ins for the human race?
Yes, it was a pretty weak excuse. But Exodus: Gods and Kings looks a lot worse, since it actually is set during a specific historical time period, and yet still includes an impressive number of white American and British actors playing Egyptian and Israelite characters.
Directed by Ridley Scott, Exodus: Gods and Kings stars Christian Bale as Moses, Joel Edgerton as Rhamses, and Aaron Paul as Joshua. John Turturro and Sigourney Weaver have supporting roles as Seti and Tuya, another king and queen of Egypt.
The A.V. Club has already describedExodus as “a whitewashed Prince of Egypt,” and many film fans are pointing out that in 2014, there is really no excuse for this type of casting.
pls give me a franchise where, when a good female character turns evil, she is not immediately dressed in a bondage-inspired outfit that is 2 strips of leather and a thong and instead dresses in sensible jeans and combat boots and a comfy jacket because hello, evil agenda here, there’s no time to be objectified, world domination is priority
"Come to the Dark Side, we have pockets and sensible footwear."
anonymous: “wait im sorry why do you want me to stop calling myself caucasian?”
alright, so because i guess the info i’ve put up here doesn’t fully answer your question, i’m going to try again. please bear in mind that i am not an academic and that this probably isn’t going to make a lot of sense and there’s going to be a lot of sarcasm. i’m really trying, though.
we really have one man to thank for the so-called “caucasian race,” and that’s german philosopher christoph meiners. in his outline of history of mankind, the human race was split into “caucasians” and “mongolians.” here, let’s quote wikipedia: “these terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance.”
germans = caucasians
jews = mongolians
wow!! if that isn’t just…unsurprising. i can’t believe an eighteenth-century european would ever buy into antisemitic tropes!!!!! hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! (remember, this is coming from the same guy that said that “negroes” don’t feel pain! i encourage you to pause and dwell on the fact that people still put stock in his theories. we can cry together)
let’s not forget johann friedrich blumenbach, who took meiners’ arbitrary classification one step further. blumenmach was a scientist. remember, this is the eighteenth century, so while scientific method is around, science doesn’t quite live up to modern expectations of systematic experimentation, and “racial” science is a bunch of untested, unproven theories based on centuries of social and institutional racism. anyway, after first classifying people according to how pretty he thinks they are, blumenbach decides to apply pseudo-science to back up his concept of a “caucasian race.” let’s quote wikipedia again, because (just to reiterate), i’m not an academic, nor is it my responsibility to spend hours researching this when you have the internet at your fingertips and can corroborate it all yourself. here you go. anyway: “blumenbach later justified his classification of the caucasian race primarily on craniology, although his categorization of five human races was still delineated by colors (white, yellow, brown, black, red) in his writings, a change from meiners’ geographically based four human race.” i don’t think i have to spell out just how fucked up any eighteenth-century forays into craniology would turn out, especially when science is used to try and justify some random german guy’s aesthetic preferences.
so blumenbach liked the look of “georgians” (but who knows? he might’ve been talking about circassians or chechens or any number of caucasian ethnic groups he knew next to nothing about) and decided that, because he thought georgians were pretty, they were probably related to germans. now might be a good time to point out that because the caucasus is such a diverse region, some peoples are “whiter” (paler) than other groups. azeris =/= circassians =/= armenians =/= romani lom =/= any number of caucasian ethnic groups. do i really need to say that these people don’t all look the same?
anyway, i think i’ve kind of digressed from the original point, which is why you specifically (and white people in general) shouldn’t identify as caucasian, and started to talk about how ridiculous it is to say that modern-day caucasian people are white. here’s why you shouldn’t call yourself caucasian:
you are not from the caucasus. you’re german, or polish, or french, or whatever—i don’t know, and your specific nationality isn’t important in this situation. whatever your ethnic origins, you are not from the caucasus. who knows? thousands upon thousands of years ago the first proto-polish person might have emigrated from the armenian highlands to settle in northern europe. maybe angela merkel can trace her roots to caucasian albania. but who cares? you are not from the caucasus, and because you are not from the caucasus, you are not caucasian.
no i’m sorry it’s 2014 and we deserve queer representation in star trek because if you’re telling me you think that sexuality and gender are gonna have the same associations and stigmas in the 23rd century when vulcans and orions and klingons are around then i’m gonna bop you in your nose
could you talk more about the male disney villains being queer coded with stereotypes?
Pink hair bows.
Many male Disney villains are what we would call “camp.” Effeminate, vain, “wimpy” and portrayed as laughable and unlikable. Calling upon common negative stereotypes about gay men, these villains are characterized as villainous by embodying these tropes and traits.
Think about it: Often Thin/un-muscled figure, heavily inked and shadowed eyes (giving the impression of eyeliner and eye shadow?), stereotypically “sassy” and/or manipulative, often ends up being cowardly once on the defensive, many have comedic male sidekicks (such as Wiggins, Smee, Iago, the…snake that isn’t Kaa)