- Amber Rose
YES THIS HELLO
It’s why I don’t buy into these white girl pin-up/burlesque revival fantasies.
forever reblog coz pinup and burlesque were stolen from woc to begin with.
NOT EVERYBODY ENJOYS READING FOR A MULTITUDE OF REASONS
- Reading is time consuming. Time is money. Paycheck> reading for fun.
- People do not know what kind of books are out there, yes even with the internet, if you’re put through a school system that only values Shakespeare and racist ass books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird that can definitely sully your idea of reading.
- Some people thrive in other intelligences like interpersonal and do really well understanding other’s emotions but struggle with their lingustic intelligence.
- Dyslexia and other learning disorders can making reading unpleasant.
- Bad eyesight.
- Most people hate math, and that’s fine and you guys will say “omg math is the devil it’s okay” but not reading is like OMG U SO IGNORANT. That doesn’t even make sense. Some people don’t like things. Are y’all children? Do you not understand that?
- Even when people do read you have stipulations on it. No ebooks. Or okay ebooks, but audio books aren’t really reading. Technology’s made it so that toilets flush themselves but if somebody wants to listen to some old white woman reading Pride and Prejudice that ain’t cool.
- It’s really classist to say that everybody should enjoy reading. The same people reblogging shit about privileges all damn day are the first ones talking about “I hate when people don’t read.” Everybody’s not privileged enough to have the time to read, or know how to read or gives two small fucks about reading.
- Some people are illiterate and literacy is not an indicator of intelligence and people need to stop believing that.
- “Reading is fundamental” except comprehension is more important. Y’all are the worst at that and if that was an indication of your intelligence (WHICH IT STILL ISN’T) I’d say go back to basics with One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish because you’re way behind the learning curve.
- People of color have a history of telling stories through word of mouth SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME and acting like written word is the only valid form of storytelling is some bullshit (AND RACIST).
- For a lot of POC in the US, we only know English and MAYBE NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT A FUCK ASS COLONIZER’S LANGUAGE ENOUGH TO READ IT FOR FUN.
I don’t understand this obsession with worrying about someone else’s reading habits. If you won’t date someone who doesn’t read fine, that’s your business, but there’s probably a reason they don’t. If you think people who don’t read aren’t intelligent, I don’t know how you’re reading with your head up your own ass anyway. Some people don’t like reading and it’s none of your business and not your place to judge and I cannot comprehend for the life of me why it’s so important to y’all.
i need all of the anarchists who don’t live in the south and all white anarchists to think critically about how they want to talk about the voting institution
don’t erase this region’s history or the struggle of Black freedom fighters to access the ballot, the revolutionary tactics and systems created for educating communities, the civil disobedience, and the intentional infiltration of an entire system
i don’t believe that institutional change can happen through voting. voting democrats, “liberals,” and “progressives” into office gets us reform, limited reform that continues to devastate the most marginalized and people on a global scale. but i do believe that deconstructing a system requires - to a certain extent - engagement with that system.
and if you can’t get down with that, that’s okay. but you’re overstepping when you wanna tell folks who come from lines and lines of being denied humanization and/or citizenship (these two things aren’t synonymous) and have actively fought to expose the infrastructural racism of the voting institution that “voting doesn’t matter.” there’s a difference between “voting doesn’t matter” and “voting doesn’t create institutional change”
only one of those things is true for me and it is the latter of the two.
This. When I hear someone say things like that, I have to walk away before I turn into a melty volcano of rage.
Ann Jarrell reports that she stayed at home with her daughter and a 3 month old grandchild despite the smells because they were told they didn’t need to evacuate and were safe. Ann Jarrell is a beekeeper and found dead, oil-soaked bees on her porch. The state plant board agreed to evacuate her bees to a safe location, but deemed the situation safe enough for Jarell’s family. They later learned it was likely they’d been exposed to toxic chemical fumes, and are now suffering from breathing problems and have been placed on inhalers.
A local elementary school outside the evacuation zone had to send home eight students who became ill after breathing petrochemical fumes. Although Exxon had determined the air around the school safe, residents, including school officials, reported strong odors of oil in and around the building. These are just a handful of disturbing examples of illness in Mayflower after the oil spill. One Mayflower resident, despite being able to see the leak from her home, was told by Exxon that residents were merely suffering allergies. Some of the residents affected by the spill have filed a class action lawsuit.
|—||Mayflower Oil Spill: Exxon Doesn’t Want You to Know People Are Getting Very, Very Sick (via theaboveground)|
pretty much my favourite commercial ever ft. strong ladies taking nobody’s bullshit (x)
WHY DOESN’T THIS HAVE MORE NOTES
Breaking the patriarchy imposed mould - brilliant !!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? FUCK OFF NIKE
Nike - exploiting women, commodifying feminism
can we stop blaming poor people for buying cheap products that were made in sweatshops? can we stop acting like alternatives to products that are made through things like child labor are always accessible and/or affordable? can we stop talking like participation in the game of capitalism is always a choice made willingly and not something poor people are forced to play a part in even when they don’t want to?
so i got this ask and i wanted to make it rebloggable so here it is. as a note, i wrote my response in word so it force capitalized everything so i deeply apologize to all of you who, like myself, appreciate the fact that i capitalize nothing in my writing ever. :) also its really long so i’m sorry for that but whatever its also great. props to unobject for helping me write this out.
ciscritcal-not-cisphobic asked: Oh, so, kinda-abstract kinda-classism-related-question: You mentioned some stuff about how “self-expression” is one of the things rich queers seek out queer scenes for. One of the things that I’m seeing as a site where, in queer circles, the staunchest resistance to the idea of gender abolition seems to include the idea of gender as a canvas of self-expression and a worry that abolition would take that away. Do you think these are related or am I wildly off-base here?
First off, thanks for the question. I think your understanding of my argument around class-privileged approach to queer community might be kind of off, but I’ll get to that in a minute. First I’ll say that yes, these things are related, but in a deeper way. Self expressionism is the conduit of late capitalism. It is the commodification of relations between people, the means by which capital has accelerated its ability to flow and change and recuperate all human relations by emptying their symbols and signifiers into a medium of social exchange, the introduction of management into one’s own presentation of oneself between peers and networks. This means that what we would at one point be able to recognize in each other as meaningful (hankycodes, being an example) loses that specificity and becomes a part of an interchangeable “self-creating” marketable identity.
You’ll see this happen in all sorts of ways, from appropriation of non-European cultures, to (radical) queer signifiers, to poor kid symbols. There is nothing sacred left. Any attempt at creating an identifiable meaning thru symbols will almost immediately fail thru these phenomena.
To relate this to queer analysis, and particularly class analysis, you have probably already noticed how queer community is more commonly based off how one markets oneself within a queer identity. This is what I was talking about in my other posts. The ultimate foundation for queer community as defined by the upper classes is “appropriate”, commodified self expression (a redundant phrase, mind you), essentially. Class-privileged queer people pull together specific queer symbols of self-expression, and those who do not fall within that do not meet the standards for queer community. Certainly everybody seeks out self-expression, poor queer people included, but it’s that self-expression became a value system and a litmus test for entry into queer spaces that falls along pre-existing lines of power.
Poor queer community is more about coming together to survive, and certainly, in the past that has meant creating ways of identifying oneself and others subtly so you know who to trust. But in the commodification of those symbols, and the emphasis on carrying those symbols at all times, has created a situation such that queer community does not actually form around common queer experience and need for resources, but around what symbols a person carries. Consequently, you will find a great deal of heterosexuals in queer spaces, cis people in trans spaces, etc, simply because they know how to look (and sound) like they fit, and that is the only requirement. It’s what makes (produces) our reality.
On the other hand, queer people who legitimately need queer community will be unable to enter into these spaces unless they market themselves well enough. But to complicate this further, really, self-expressionism is the upper-tier, or the final exchange, of individuals as commodities. Meaning that even though a poor person or a disabled person etc may find themselves able to fit these requirements, they must also first meet the requirements of “contribution” to community, ie how much resource or labor they are able to bring. Failing to meet these standards is to become an absence, or to “invite” suspicion.
But stepping back, this means that poor and poc queers who are unable to wear symbols of queerness because of money, safety, etc, will not be accepted as appropriately queer. I, for example, have walked past groups of ~fabulous glittery sparkle queers~ and have them look at me like I’m shit because they assume I am not queer enough. And yet, when I pass hood queers on the street, we tend to subtly recognize each other through other methods, knowing that our self expression is not possible.
On a more serious level, you will see queer spaces with resources that are supposedly available to queer people that are really just available to those who are able to market themselves (in terms of self-expression, resource, and labor value) well enough, including heterosexuals who take on queer signifiers. You will see in these spaces people who have no lack in resources be given full access while poor, homeless, disabled queers and queers of color are barred from them since they do not/are unable to appropriately market themselves.
As a quick note, the valued signifiers are defined by a number of influences, from class-privilege (availability of queer signifiers), to whiteness, to certain bodies, to ability, etc. and come in the forms of dress, presentation, language, spoken values, “contribution”, etc.
It needs to be said that self-expressionism is both a privilege and a control tactic of the upper classes. Which can be seen in the above examples. Essentially, self-expressionism is the nesting ground of the class-privileged. Self-expressionism requires money, resource, protection, and ultimately bars people from participation in networks based on the availability of these things in their lives.
To answer your question of how these above dynamics in queer community relate to anti-abolitionists who claim that the ability to express oneself will be destroyed… They are not inaccurate entirely in thinking that. In a sense, self expression is an opiate, to use the famous Marx metaphor. It is an addictive ability to move between spaces and identities at will, and one that allows people to accrue and abuse power. It allows for new avenues in which patriarchy can be enacted. So many folks who use that argument are really saying “my commodity will lose its power”. The ability to appear anti-patriarchy, for example, through “femme” signifiers will lose its power. Etc.
But there is also an understandable rejection of abolitionism that comes from trans women in particular reacting to cis abolitionism. Cis abolitionism obviously does not include itself because it does not see itself as a constructed identity. Cis people do not recognize that their sex is not inherent. So their analysis naturally leads to the annihilation of trans people and the freeing of constraints on cis self-expression. It is ultimately not abolitionism.
In addition to that, there is also the fact that we already must express ourselves, and queer people feeling that need to express themselves (especially differently from how we’re supposed to) is important. It can’t be simply criticized or shamed just because it is capital. Everything is, of course, within capital, but that doesn’t mean we should stop doing everything we do to feel okay. Non-expressionism is the equivalent to social death. We don’t have a choice but to identify ourselves, just with the weariness that it is an aspect of life under capital and not a revolutionary act. To simply appear may be an act of resistance, but the means to appear have become an act of value-creation and power.
So, yes, the general desire for maintenance of self-expressionism is a mixture of the maintenance of power relations and the survival within capital. So there isn’t a way to just opt out of this. Non-expressionism can become a form of self-expression just as easily as anything else. The all-black-everything hoodie-always-up-even-in-the-summer chipped-black-nail-polish queer is not so different than the hardfemme(oneword)glitterqueer.
I think one major problem that self-expressionism poses to anti-capital/anti-hetero struggle is that it is liberalism posing as radicalism. I once heard liberalism, in regards to white supremacy, described as “and they say desegregation was a big step forward / but integration only covered up a rotten core / the surface might’ve changed but the cauldron is still hot / now we more politically correct with less real talk” (Blue Scholars, before they got shitty). In that sense, liberalism’s primary effect is obscuring once obvious power imbalances. It has an appearance of self-liberation, but ultimately it just invisibilizes power. Expression may have ~radically~ expanded its field of possibilities (queer becomes glitter and patches and genderqueer just a means of ”fucking with” and creating new forms of gender presentation), but cishetero society is in no danger (plus it allows for heterosexuals and cis people to take on these identities). This is how self-expressionism functions in queer community.
Anyway, I hope that answers your question. If you send me an ask, I’ll recommend a couple other things that talk about this that are excellent (and more aesthetically pleasing too).
Just so we’re all clear on what we just read. Black people make up 22% of the poor but only 14% of the government benefits. Meaning, 8% of poor Black people are not taking government benefits when they need them.
While, white people make up 42% of the poor but receive 69% of the government benefits. Meaning, there are white people who are classified as middle class who are receiving government benefits.
…but welfare queens and stuff.
LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT!
Black people make up 22% of the poor BUT only 14% of the government benefits.
White people make up 42% of the poor BUT receive 69% of the government benefits.
This needs to go viral.
This is essential piece of information revealing racial bias AGAINST Black people in receiving government benefits.
Never again do I want to hear about White people living in poverty.
Never again do I want to hear about Black people living on government benefits.
Reblog this. Over and over again. POST IT ON EVERY SOCIAL MEDIA SITE WHERE YOU HAVE AN ACCOUNT.
stop supporting the myth that poor people don’t deserve to have “nice” things. because that sort of narrative continues to ignore the complexities of capitalism and struggle and takes us away from examining why it’s easier for someone living below the poverty line to get a smart phone than to get sustainable support for housing, employment at a livable wage, healthcare services, etc.
its the notion of boycotts
you wanna know why the bus boycotts of the civil rights movement were so successful?
because an alternative black run transportation system was created for those who couldn’t walk to work or whatever they had to go
they didn’t just tell people “oh the bus enforces racist policies so don’t take it and FUCK if you can’t get to work on time or where you need to be!”
they said “hey you’re paying to get on the bus and not even being given a seat let alone being ejected if a white passenger needs your seat. here’s a potentially better alternative where you pay to sit down and get to where you need to go”
all this “boycott Target, Walmart, Monsanto owned companies” comes from a notion of boycott located in the politic of privileged white people
and that’s why they are largely unsuccessful
its why Obama just gave Monsanto the green light to commit even more fuckery to your food
its the reason why cooperation are considered people
its the reason why Walmart is allowed to usurp safety and labor regulations in their factories, and underpay their American workers
because you say “don’t spend your money there” and that’s the end of the story
you expect people to locate their survival in a politic of “abstaining from unethical choices”
and then from there those unethical choices are somehow supposed to magically disappear. when really only a small percentage of people are able to boycott so many things
there wouldn’t be a movement located around the “99%” if 99% of people could really afford to stop shopping at the unethical places and stop buying the unethical brands
good luck with your hocus pocus activist logic
hocus pocus lol. but this shit is hella real.