Before John Green, his general category of realistic (non-fantasy) YA was rife with teen angst and “issues” fiction that you might have associated with the legendary Judy Blume, or with newer writers like Sarah Dessen or Laurie Halse Anderson. Anderson’s classic 1999 novel Speak, about a high schooler struggling to deal with the aftermath of sexual assault, was so influential that three years later Penguin launched an entire imprint named after it. One of the books launched under the behest of Speak was Green’s Looking for Alaska. But it’s Green whose name you’re more likely to know today, not Anderson’s, although Anderson has won more awards and written more books.
On Twitter, Green has 2 million followers. Compared to the rest of the leaders in Young Adult fiction, that number is staggering. To approach even half the Twitter influence of John Green all by himself, you need an entire army of YA women. Anderson, Blume, Dessen, Veronica Roth, Cassandra Clare, Richelle Mead, Margaret Stohl, Kami Garcia, Rainbow Rowell, Maureen Johnson, Malinda Lo, Holly Black, LJ Smith, Ellen Hopkins, Shannon Hale, Lauren Myracle, Libba Bray, Melissa Marr, and Leigh Bardugo: As a group these women only have about 1.2 million followers on Twitter.
That’s the voice of one man outweighing several decades of women who have had major successes, critical acclaim, and cultural influence.
“Bring consent out of the bedroom. I think part of the reason we have trouble drawing the line “it’s not okay to force someone into sexual activity” is that in many ways, forcing people to do things is part of our culture in general. Cut that shit out of your life. If someone doesn’t want to go to a party, try a new food, get up and dance, make small talk at the lunchtable—that’s their right. Stop the “aww c’mon” and “just this once” and the games where you playfully force someone to play along. Accept that no means no—all the time.”—The Pervocracy: Consent culture. (via wickedgirlssavingourselves)
do people really think radfems wish for violence against trans people
why would we want more oppression and violence, that makes no sense
nobody deserves any form of violence just because of their gender expression
And yet you call trans women male and men which is an act of violence according the WHO,moth APA org, pediatric orgs, and other experts org on the subject.
You can say anything you want. I know people who will swear up and down that they are not mowing their lawns even while behind the mower.
What you do counts. They are mowing their lawns. You are being violent.
Let’s not minimize how active radfems have been in revoking medical care for transgender people, or their attempts to legislate away all protections for us. The physical violence they inflict is wrought through intermediaries, but it’s still there and it still kills.
If you put a gun in someone else’s hands, tell them where to shoot us and then whip them up into a rage so they pull the trigger, your hands are red lol sorry not sorry
Why does anybody want more oppression and violence, OP? Bigotry is not rational. It’s not logical. It does not flow from reason and it cannot be dissolved with reason.
The fact that radical feminist hatred of trans women is irrational and in fact causes radical feminists to collude with patriarchy and enact policies and philosophies that harm cis women as well in order to punish trans women is completely irrational, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
The radical feminist position on trans people is that we SHOULD NOT BE. That’s the foundation. With this as a foundational premise, how can there not be violence and oppression around the corner and lurking beneath the surface?
You can consciously try to be respectful of someone, you can consciously try to make friends of them or tell yourself that you’re treating them well, but if your foundational premise is that they should not exist… well, how can that not shine through?
When radical feminists are saying they respect our rights and existence, there’s always that BUT linking around the corner: “I respect your right to expression, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT BE.”
When radical feminists say they would love to stand with us in solidarity if only we would “leave them alone” or “let there be [cis] women’s spaces], these things are always defined by moving goal posts that inexorably lead back to that foundation: we should not be. We should not exist. Nobody should have to see us, hear from us, think about us, or deal with us.
"I don’t wish violence on you, but YOU SHOULD NOT BE." is something that people can say even while they’re committing direct lethal violence. "I don’t wish violence on you" isn’t a stance, it’s an apologetic. "You should not be" is the stance.
Are there poc from history that weren't slaves or servents? ( I'm sure there were, but were there any well known ones?)
I get why you asked this question, and I get why you framed it the way you have. But I want to take this moment to break down what you’re really asking, here. Let’s take your question on a world tour.
Education in the U.S. (and some other places, too), is incredibly Eurocentric, and most people don’t even know the histories of places other than Europe pre-1500s, and America post-1500s.
This leads to the following assumptions that 1. all history occurred in Europe; 2. Europe was always dominant as a “continent” over all other continents; 3. That people we consider white are a world majority.
Here’s a breakdown of the would population by continent. We know that they are far from racially homogenous, but a re-framing is definitely in order.
Just about 75% of the world’s population lives in Africa and Asia. Notice that’s 60.3% in Asia alone.
As for relative SIZE of continents, a lot of people have really confused ideas about relative sized of continents in relation to each other. A graphic designed by Kai Krause went viral in some parts of the internet a while back, but in case you missed it, here it is:
Here’s the whole thing, which has the original data input the graphic was made from, as well as this image of Europe superimposed on Africa, true to proportion:
Okay, we’ve discussed the size and proportion of land masses that humans occupy, and relative populousness of those land masses. But what about race? Well, in a lot of ways, the way we construct race is by skin color; dark or light. Here’s a (admittedly super generalizing) map of the world’s human population by approximate skin color. But it helps some people to see it [via Encyclopedia Brittanica]:
Now, the “lightest skin” areas don’t necessarily reflect “white people” as we would think of it. Many East Asians and Indigenous people in the north (Inuit, Saami), have light skin.
There is no way to make an accurate estimate of what percentage of the world’s population now are what race because many, many nations do not take a census that records race. Trying to determine racial demographics from past eras, especially in Medieval or Ancient times when concepts like “white people” did. not. exist. is basically impossible, for all intents and purposes. Some people say that a third of the entire world’s population lived in Europe during say, the Middle Ages…as we can see that doesn’t necessarily mean “white people”. Moreover, what are we basing that on? Do they take Chinese documents into account? What about the documents from the library of Timbuktu, which as far as I know are still being explored, cataloged, and translated?
Let’s revisit the question. "Are there poc from history that weren’t slaves or serv[a]nts?"
Now, let’s flip the question: For the entirety of human history, was the majority of the world’s population subject to a minority of the world’s population?
The answer is, of course, no. The expectation that there would be a finite list of exceptions to enslavement and servitude on the part of ALL people of color for the ENTIRETY of human history is based on our current views of the world, based on what we have been taught, and HOW we have been taught it.
These expectations are shaped by the media we consume and create.
These expectations are created by an education curricula for history that begins in Europe, a Europe that is supposedly isolated geographically and culturally, despite the fact that it isn’t even separated by water from Asia.
American history begins with “first contact” or “discovery”, with almost no mention of the political or social history of the continent before being “discovered”. The terminology used in most books and documentaries is definitively Eurocentric: “We” discovered “The Other”. We divide time and space into “The Old World” and “The New World.” WHO, exactly, was this “world” NEW to?
What I would *love* to see is an analysis of how many classes that use books that DO cover non-European history, SKIP those histories because “there’s no time”. I am in a rather unique position to witness this, and have come to believe that this is a very common practice in American/U.S. classrooms. Because learning the same five things about the Revolutionary War and World War 2 for six years in a row takes precedence over learning even the most basic facts about anything regarding World History. WHY do we learn the same things over and over? WHY do we know what we know? WHO wrote it down and said this is not just truth, but The Truth?
I’m not asking these questions because I know the answers…I don’t, really. I’m asking them because I want this questioning habit to spread as far as it can. This blog covers only the teeniest, tiniest portion of human history! The focus is incredibly narrow, because I am only one person. But look how much can be amassed in terms of knowledge, in terms of forming new questions, just by ONE person! A whole generation of people are becoming adults right now, and they should be full of questions. Who is going to write the history for the generation after this one? Can you do better?
what if “lucy” was about lucy liu casually beating up pervy white dudes instead
and the story was about an asian woman who gets justice from the white men who used and abducted her
and it was an effective commentary on white imperialism, the violent commodification of asian people and asian culture by western society, the demonization of asian people, and the continuing history of violence on unwilling asian bodies especially those of asian women by white people
and what if when a pervy white dude asks the asian woman “do you speak english” while he’s in fucking taiwan, she shoots him in the head instead
what if this movie wasn’t going to be a bunch of white imperialist nonsense masquerading as something “progressive” at the expense of faceless nameless asian bodies
X-Mendirector Bryan Singer has been accused of drugging, manipulating, and forcibly sodomizing a then-17-year-old boy in a graphic new lawsuit filed yesterday. The suit further contends that Singer did these things as part of “a group of adult males similarly positioned in the entertainment industry that maintained and exploited boys in a sordid sex ring,” according to excerpts published inThe Wrap. Implicated in the charges against Singer—and allegedly at the head of that ring—is Marc Collins-Rector, founder of the Internet startup Digital Entertainment Network and a convicted sex offender, who pled guilty in 2004 to luring minors across state lines for sex.
Apparently, this is barely even a secret to people who work in the industry, and several more big industry members are going to be named in suits over the next several weeks. Honestly, it is beyond fucked that Hollywood keeps supporting these people when they know what they’re like.
i feel like a weirdo now that i’m aware 124k people say wednesday “wed-ness-day” out loud (well, in their head) when they type it and i don’t??? like, i’m just conditioned to just type it wednesday and not question it i guess???
i hit paragon level 150 in d3 and now it’s just like the level-ups come reaaaaaal slow. maybe it’s a sign i need to hit tier 3, but then i’d also still like to not die p much constantly. oh, the struggle.