“If you are asking ever, why is this necessary to talk about power and privilege? I want to you believe me, believe every person who nods when I say this that whether you believe in power and privilege, whether you think that systems of oppression they still affect you. Whether you are a person who lives at the intersections of oppression or someone who has no idea what targets you hold, just know that as I stand up here systems of oppression and the agents (you and us) are working in line to keep this machine going. We are being used as weapons of systems that exclude, abuse and exploit people with limited power and target statuses. If you think that you understand all forms of oppression because you too are marginalized I want you to rethink that. We are taught from childhood to use our position in power, no matter how little power we have to put others down for not having the same power as us. We are taught to deny our experiences and to deny others theirs. We are taught to not believe in each other, to want quick answers, this is our internalized capitalism, to punish ourselves and others and put them through a jury of our oppressive messages (internalized prison industrial system.) We are taught that this is normal. Alejandro Jodorowsky says “Birds born in a cage think fly is an illness” so think about how these systems have caused you to believe that liberation work is impossible that it is pointless simply because you have never been given another way.”— Fabian Romero [excerpt from the keynote speech at Southeast Regional Unity Conference April 13, 2013 at UNC Chapel Hill] (via fabianromero)
“The romance industry conflates finding love with looking a certain way, and it’s hard even for the strongest of us not to internalize messages about the way we look. And worse, these messages are normalized. Just think of things people say when they are getting ready to date someone: ‘He’s cute,’ ‘He’s short,’ ‘He’s kind of chubby,’ ‘He’s tall and fine.’ Or men: ‘I prefer slender girls,’ ‘I’m not really into fat girls,’ ‘I prefer Asian chicks,’ and on and on. It is completely acceptable to say the most appalling things about the way people look when it comes to dating, and if someone is called out for it, their opinion becomes a matter of ‘preference.’ What gets ignored in calling this level of categorization ‘just preference’ is a history and culture of mainstream advertising that impacts our psychology, causing us to actually want to respond to certain things over others. It’s hardly a coincidence that people are attracted to images of femininity that have been beaten into their psyches….We are taught to prefer certain things over others, and when we repeatedly see the same exaggerated images of femininity and masculinity, we internalize a specific standard of beauty and begin to strive for it unconsciously. Considering the exaggerated nature of these kinds of images, preference is not really a ‘preference’; it is more like a culturally sanctioned fetish.”— Samhita Mukhopadhyay, Outdated: Why Dating Is Ruining Your Love Life (via eibmorb)
(Source: brute-reason)
“It should be acknowledged that people who live with illness require social recognition, inclusion and support. It should also be acknowledged that long-term illness is not weakness, other than in a physical sense: those who live with illness need, and are usually obliged to acquire, many practical and emotional survival skills. They may even have something to teach the healthy. But neither this support nor this acknowledgement will be forthcoming if illness is—as has traditionally been the case with disability—construed as a purely individual problem.”— Patricia de Wolfe, Private Tragedy in Social Context? Reflections on Disability, Illness and Suffering (2002)
(Source: alienaristocrat)
“[T]ake the notion of “political correctness”. It is true that movements of conscience have piled demands onto people faster than the culture can absorb them. That is an unfortunate side-effect of social progress. Conservatism, however, twists language to make the inconvenience of conscience sound like a kind of oppression. The campaign against political correctness is thus a search-and-destroy campaign against all vestiges of conscience in society. The flamboyant nastiness of rhetors such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter represents the destruction of conscience as a type of liberation. They are like cultists, continually egging on their audiences to destroy their own minds by punching through one layer after another of their consciences.”—
Phil Agre on Political Correctness (via jonathan-cunningham)
Any time someone brings up “well I’m not ‘politically correct’” it calls for a mega-side eye. Because, what? Your desire to say whatever you want however you want to say it trumps the comfort and well-being of the people around you?
I need feminism because all people are fundamentally equal, and society should reflect that.
skalja | alliterate | heroics:
eta: People don’t analyze things to ~*harsh on people’s squee*~. “Oh no, you’ve pointed out an issue in this show/comic/film/whatever. Clearly you’re doing it because it’s popular. Or to ruin everyone’s fun!”
god seriously i am so goddamn tired of people asking me that. why is analyzing stuff bad? why is caring about stuff bad? why is not wanting to condone oppressive shit bad?
This seems like a good place for Moff’s Law:
Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it???”
If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.
First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.
Now, that doesn’t mean you have to think about a work of art. I don’t know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis — or if I do, they’re pretty annoying themselves. And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art. That should go without saying. Finally, this should also go without saying, but since it apparently doesn’t: Believe me, the person who is annoying you so much by thinking about the art? They have already considered your revolutionary “just enjoy it” strategy, because it is not actually revolutionary at all. It is the default state for most of humanity.
So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less — that not using one’s capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated — you are not saying anything particularly intelligent. And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them and what’s going on in their own heads, you’re not helping anything; on the contrary, you’re acting as an advocate for entropy.
And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.
