Gender Spiral
tuxedomaskepisodeguide:

the episode in which tuxedo mask tearfully vows to abolish capitalism and everything it stands for when his friendship bracelet from claire’s breaks a whole five seconds after buying it

tuxedomaskepisodeguide:

the episode in which tuxedo mask tearfully vows to abolish capitalism and everything it stands for when his friendship bracelet from claire’s breaks a whole five seconds after buying it

rocktavian:

I’ve seen some confusion about the DoA timeline in the comments on yesterday’s strip, so I thought I’d whip up a calendar for general use. Other notes:
1-3 (Men Are From Beck, Women Are From Clark) is canonically set in August
4-3 (Up All Night To Get Vengeance) is canonically set in September

rocktavian:

I’ve seen some confusion about the DoA timeline in the comments on yesterday’s strip, so I thought I’d whip up a calendar for general use. Other notes:

  • 1-3 (Men Are From Beck, Women Are From Clark) is canonically set in August
  • 4-3 (Up All Night To Get Vengeance) is canonically set in September

smallrevolutionary:

twssonline:

jhameia:

sarahjhuynh:

writeswrongs:

Two more kickers: “There’s absolutely no benefit seen when women reach out to female faculty, nor do we see benefits from black students reaching out to black faculty or Hispanic students reaching out to Hispanic faculty,” and, “In business academia, we see a 25 percentage point gap in the response rate to Caucasian males vs. women and minorities.” Word, this sounds great, we’re doing great. [NPR]

But white male privilege doesn’t exist?

And then there’s this:

Milkman found there were very large disparities between academic departments and between schools. Faculty at private schools were significantly more likely to discriminate against women and minorities than faculty at public schools. And faculty in fields that were very lucrative were also more likely to discriminate. So there was very little discrimination in the humanities. There was more discrimination among faculty at the natural sciences. And there was a lot of discrimination among the faculty at business schools.

Uh-huh tell me again how science and money are ideologically neutral.

Wowza.

i will always reblog this because people always want to say “what gatekeepers?” “who is doing this racist stuff?” “why would you say that MOC and Women are discriminated against?” well lets think about it….. here is an excellent example. People reaching out on their own attempting to gain perspective/guidance/mentors because hey, bootstraps and shit, and they are largely ignored if they are not white males. Actual educators in the field who are molding and shaping the minds of the youth, who have invaluable information and expertise on the subject they teach, who are the gatekeepers to this information ONLY share it with white males. People would like to relegate racism to murder and brutality… but this is another type of violence. This is perpetuating a cycle of poverty by withholding the literal wealth of knowledge as well as withholding the benefits of a well built network. Do you know how invaluable having a mentor is for many MOC and WOC? a hell of a lot of us are first generation college students. I maneuvered the education system completely blind, stumbling into whatever. It took A LOT of getting things wrong to get it right. Can you imagine if I had a connection with a college professor to help guide you through the process? Give you insight on the field you are studying? How important that connection is? How important it is to know who they - as valued experts in their field - know? Now. When you exclude women and men of color from that experience, from that potentially life altering relationship then you are slanting the odds against us because of our gender/skin color. That is violence. You are limiting my prospective wealth. You are limiting my prospective growth. All in favor of white men.

squareroot-1:

thoughtsonbooks:

writingwithcolor:

aelowan submitted to writingwithcolor:

In reply to “Too Much Diversity” - This question itself is very telling of what comes of having a single, monolithic narrative. Thinking about what has been written by Vadana Singh and said by Chimamanda Adichie about writing their first stories, they say the same things - they wrote their earliest stories about white men, even when they had never laid eyes on one, because that was who the books they read were about.

Little brown girls, one in Delhi, one in Nigeria, writing their stories about white men in the snow, because they couldn’t imagine stories about little brown girls.

It’s time for new stories.

I think what was behind the “too much diversity” question is also this idea of everyone who is not a cis, straight, white male being part of a vague ‘check-list,’ in which women, or a handful of POC characters, are worth a good amount of points (token characters!) - but too many and then the story is unbalanced, unrealistic, laughable, or PC drivel. And, of course, even the “other” characters can’t be too “other.” If you write - dare I venture? - a disabled, Japanese lesbian, or a transgender man in an interracial relationship? Too many points on the checklist! Overload! Abort, abort! 

I don’t know if I’m expressing myself clearly, but I say it because I’ve felt this kind of pressure in my own writing before. That some “other” characters are okay, but too many and eyebrows will be raised. Martin Freeman makes a great example of this mindset - in his Introduction for a Sherlock Holmes book, he talks about how, before taking on the BBC Sherlock project, he imagined how a modern Sherlock Holmes adaptation could go wrong - jokingly wondering if D.I. Lestrade would be remade into a “wheelchair-bound lesbian.” (You can read it here.) As if wheelchair-bound lesbians are unrealistic, or distracting, or could only be put into a story by a radical feminist with a malicious political agenda.

Despite being around diversity, as a kid I was convinced that diversity in fiction is political, whereas a lack of diversity is apolitical, and that somehow too much diversity is unrealistic. Then one day I realized that my neighbor was a Puerto Rican lesbian in a wheelchair (Martin Freeman has never met her, obviously), my other neighbors were two gay Lithuanian men, I lived in a Jewish, Chinese, and Eastern Caribbean neighborhood, and I just saw it: This is life. The “other” is life, and the checklist can never have too many points, because personal identities are various and infinite.

White, straight, etc., men are not the majority, the norm, the default, apolitical, or somehow more “real” than everyone else. Don’t be scared to diversify your writing or your reading. You don’t have to search for a defense or justifications that cater to the dominant culture. 

 ”I was convinced that diversity in fiction is political, whereas a lack of diversity is apolitical”

This is such an important thing and phrased so perfectly. The status quo, the privileged default, is not apolitical, it’s oppressive. If you say things like ‘I didn’t put any LGBTQ+ characters in my story because I didn’t want it to be about that’ you *are* saying something ‘about that’. You’re saying that the world is for cis and straight people by default, and everyone else are like ‘add ons’, rather than just as real and present and part of it. Etc. Neutrality supports the oppressor. When the status quo is inequality and oppression, doing the status quo thing supports inequality and oppression.

The modern view [that it is bad for adults to read fairy tales / children’s books] seems to me to involve a false conception of growth. They accuse us of arrested development because we have not lost a taste we had in childhood. But surely arrested development consists not in refusing to lose old things but in failing to add new things? I now like hock, which I am sure I should not have liked as a child. But I still like lemon-squash. I call this growth or development because I have been enriched: where I formerly had only one pleasure, I now have two. But if I had to lose the taste for lemon-squash before I acquired the taste for hock, that would not be growth but simple change.

I now enjoy Tolstoy and Jane Austen and Trollope as well as fairy tales and I call that growth: if I had had to lose the fairy tales in order to acquire the novelists, I would not say that I had grown but only that I had changed. A tree grows because it adds rings: a train doesn’t grow by leaving one station behind and puffing on to the next. In reality, the case is stronger and more complicated than this. I think my growth is just as apparent when I now read the fairy tales as when I read the novelists, for I now enjoy the fairy tales better than I did in childhood: being now able to put more in, of course I get more out.
C. S. Lewis, “On Three Ways of Writing for Children” (via dduane)
When you’re at the pool lounging on a beach chair and some little kids are running and the lifeguard screams out “no running” do you respond “excuse, not all of us are running”? No, you don’t. The lifeguard didn’t have to specifically state who they were talking to because you’re intelligent enough to comprehend that the comment wasn’t being directed at you.

Found a quote that shuts down that “not all men” argument pretty well. (via mykicks)

AHaha. haaaa. hh.

(via thefeministbookclub)

rraaaarrl:

space-bridge-to-nowhere:

Transformers fandom.

paging fastestcatalive

fineas-and-pherb:

Best backstory. (x)

roboboners:

kaible:

nevver:

*Nobody has actually ever died in Indiana

even if you escape ohio, nega-ohio will get you in the end

Florida

roboboners:

kaible:

nevver:

*Nobody has actually ever died in Indiana

even if you escape ohio, nega-ohio will get you in the end

Florida

drtanner:

bigmamag:

livelongandgetiton:

ormondhsacker:

christinefuckingchapel:

is that you hobby lobby

Am I the only one that’s a just a tiny bit pissed off that this is still an issue?

The Original Series wasn’t even in the general VICINITY of fucking around yo

OKAY, so you know I care about reboot and all, despite its problems, because that shit got me into Star Trek in the first place. But you wanna know its major problem? It’s not good science fiction. It’s an action movie in space. GOOD science fiction is the original fucking series, right here.

They took a social issue that was HIGHLY TABOO and made a show about it because you can get away with that kind of thing by putting it on another planet and just having the Enterprise point the bullshit out. It’s 2014 and this argument is sadly still relevant. And do you know why it’s still relevant? Because the average person isn’t well-educated in social issues. They’re well-educated in summer blockbusters. We need more science fiction that broadens the mind and just doesn’t pit good vs. evil. Star Wars is where you go for great action adventure, good vs. evil. Star Trek was wholly separate because it was concerned with the human condition and the state of the future.

In short, I will roundhouse kick anyone in the face that calls the original series a silly 60s camp show with no entertainment value. It made me contemplate my very existence and it did so on the budget of a bologna sandwich.

SECONDING ALL OF THIS SO VERY MUCH. 

Fiction is a clever thing, because when you’re enjoying something fictional, whether it’s a book or a TV show or a movie or a video game, you don’t have your defenses up in the way you will do when someone IRL tries to tell you about social issues. When you hear a message about social issues through fiction, it’s vastly more likely to make it past those barriers you’d otherwise be putting up and to make a difference to you.

This could be a really good thing, wherein fiction becomes a means by which to easily get positive and constructive messages across to people, but more often it’s instead just full of nasty, toxic shit like how women are prizes and black people are criminals and bisexuality isn’t real and trans people are freaks. That’s the shit that’s getting through those barriers at the moment, and it’s fucking awful.

Fuck you if you don’t think entertainment or fiction matter.