Showing posts tagged privilege




Female privilege is getting to claim a headache to avoid sex.

Female oppression is having to claim physical illness to avoid sex because men won’t take a simple fucking “no” for an answer.

Female oppression is men being so entitled that they think being denied sex is oppressive.



"Each and every one of us has the capacity to be an oppressor. I want to encourage each and everyone of us to interrogate how we might be an oppressor and how we might be able to become liberators for ourselves and for each other."


“This is privilege: being able to ignore an argument because you don’t like it. not because it isn’t true but because you simply don’t like the facts or how those facts make them feel. being able to walk away from a battle because it makes you uncomfortable. there are people that have to deal with this every single day and can’t walk away from it. they don’t get a break. Sugarcoating the facts doesn’t make them any less true. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. my aggression shouldn’t give you the right to disregard the fact that your entire argument is flawed. BUT SUCH IS THE NATURE OF PRIVILEGE”

Instead of facing implicit bias or stereotype threat, I had the privilege of implicit endorsement. For instance, whenever I attended technical meetings, people would assume that I knew what I was doing (regardless of whether I did or not) and treat me accordingly. If I stared at someone in silence and nodded as they were talking, they would usually assume that I understood, not that I was clueless. Nobody ever talked down to me, and I always got the benefit of the doubt in technical settings.

As a result, I was able to fake it till I made it, often landing jobs whose postings required skills I hadn’t yet learned but knew that I could pick up on the spot. Most of my interviews for research assistantships and summer internships were quite casual – I looked and sounded like I knew what I was doing, so people just gave me the chance to try. And after enough rounds of practice, I actually did start knowing what I was doing. As I gained experience, I was able to land more meaningful programming jobs, which led to a virtuous cycle of further improvement.

This kind of privilege that I – and other people who looked like me – possessed was silent, manifested not in what people said, but rather in what they didn’t say. We had the privilege to spend enormous amounts of time developing technical expertise without anyone’s interference or implicit discouragement. Sure, we worked really hard, but our efforts directly translated into skill improvements without much loss due to interpersonal friction. Because we looked the part.

“Privilege is when you think something is not a problem because it’s not a problem to you personally.”

David Gaider 

(source: it was tweeted by @femfreq)


a little optimism (and a lot of privilege) and maybe you too can live the ‘American Dream’ 


a little optimism (and a lot of privilege) and maybe you too can live the ‘American Dream’ 


At the University of Michigan, Museum of Natural History. Exhibition: Understanding Race


At the University of Michigan, Museum of Natural History. Exhibition: Understanding Race






Someone wanted this rebloggable and I didn’t see til just now. Sorry bout that, love.

Thank you so much for this. This post actually changed my view. Thank you!

I think this explains it in a way that might help a lot of people understand



like there is no simpler, more concise, yet entirely inclusive way to explain this shit. Like i couldnt say it any better myself. somebody needs to publish this as an article or something (for those dumbfuckers who think tumblr isnt a legitimate place to express ideas and take in new information) 

that time i had to explain societal benefits of being male to a bunch of dudes who wanted a cookie because they’ve never raped anyone


it started out with this article: 

‘Why I’m suing my gym over their sexist women-only hours’

my friend’s husband posted this article on facebook, asking if people agreed with the man who wrote the article. is it fair that a gym would offer women-only hours where men had no access? and furthermore, was it fair that men and women then paid the same amount for their gym membership even though it meant that for 442 hours per year, the men weren’t allowed to use the gym?

[the rest under a cut- image heavy]

Read More

Goodbye pumpkin spice latte. Forever.

Last year during this exact week, I wrote a blog titled, ‘Starbucks Disrespects Values Voters,’ calling out Starbucks’ CEO, Howard Schultz, for supporting a liberal political agenda that totally disregards the traditional values of many customers and staff members.

Another year gone by and Schultz has become even more extreme and intolerant. At Starbucks’ annual shareholders meeting, Schultz sent a clear message that he does not want the business of anyone who believes that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, pointedly telling one such shareholder, ‘You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.’ This outburst reportedly came right after Schultz stated he wanted to ‘embrace diversity of all kinds.’

He doesn’t want our business. Schultz statement isn’t tolerant. It is prejudicial and bigoted. So where are the newspaper headlines reading, ‘Starbucks CEO Refuses Pro-Marriage Supporters Service,’ which is exactly the message his statement conveys?

What’s next, Starbucks? Two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or ‘now hiring’ signs reading, ‘Heterosexuals Need Not Apply’?

Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Schultz should have heeded my warning a year ago. In fact, during this year’s meeting, conservative shareholder Tom Strobhar admitted that after the company voiced its support for same-sex “marriage” in Washington state, the company saw a drop in profits.

So in the end, Schultz is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles. I do not hold an MBA, but I do remember that 4th grade arithmetic teaches us that the profits made from 2 percent are less than the profits from 98 percent.

I’ve already dumped Starbucks. I prefer Dunkin’ Donuts, anyway.

Concerned Women for America media strategist Chelsen Vicari (via afterelton)

LOL - they really think this stuff is true, don’t they?

(via lostinmiami)

This person is their MEDIA STRATEGIST

(via daveholmes)


(via sexartandpolitics)

One… oh lord… and two, penciling some Starbucks in during my errands tomorrow. I will have the biggest drink they have in honor of queer folks everywhere. (It’ll be an iced chai, if anyone’s wondering.)

(via barbeauxbot)

Twice as many conservatives as liberals?  Did they decide math was a left wing conspiracy, too?  

(via amhran-comhrac)

There is a fucking starbucks on every corner here. I can easily support this. Spoiler: I already was a SB fan, no shock there.

(via ouyangdan)

I’m not a Starbucks fan (their stuff is too sweet for me), but I fully support this. OH THE POOR OPPRESSED STRAIGHT CONSERVATIVES! NOTHING EVER GOES THEIR WAY!



Presented without comment, because I’m sure someone will be able to find the words better than I can.

oh look we have cute doodles too



Presented without comment, because I’m sure someone will be able to find the words better than I can.

oh look we have cute doodles too

“Meanwhile, there’s the social justice aspect. People have dismissed male rape, racial murders and even genocides under power + privilege at one point or another. Unfortunately, “racism” is discrimination based on race. How could it be anything else? Power and privilege are held by the majority and have nothing to do with individual actions: racism is an individual action. Holding a burning hatred in your heart for everyone of East Timorean ancestry is racism, even if it’s just you. And, since all races are equal (If you disagree with this, you may be a terrible person! Ask your doctor.), so is hating anyone of any race for their race alone. Lots of people with racist beliefs working together are still racist. If you really do mean to talk about an entire system biased against race, you can say something like “institutional racism”, but institutional racism is a subset of racism and all discrimination based on race is racism, no matter what the scale.”

This is clearly privilege: Why “power + privilege” is wrong 

this is such a fundamental misapprehension of the subject i don’t even know where to start, but how about, there is a difference between ‘no race is //better// than any other’ and ‘no race has //more institutional power// than any other’.  primarily, the latter is completely untrue and has been for centuries thanks to white european colonialism.

the illusion that all ‘race based prejudice’ is equivalent is based on an explicit denial of the intersection of power with prejudice.  pulling out your dictionary definition doesn’t mean you have an absolute rule about what is and isn’t racism that you get to trumpet over the heads of those whose //systemic// oppression you choose not to acknowledge.

besides, dictionary definitions only cover theory.  the power+privilege def is based on //actual practice//.  when you say ‘there is no difference between the discrimination experienced by white people versus poc’ you are lying.

(via ultralaser)

reblogged for commentary.
















I did a thing

I am blinded by beauty

this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve come across in a long time.

I understand the daily hardships that so many people have in a world ruled by white males.

I understand that sometimes this can make it feel as if all white males are the enemy (especially for those who fight for equality).

but posts like this need to stop.

you are not advancing anybodies rights.

you are not promoting anybodies equality.

this is not activism.

this is hate-mongering.




Thanks for the contribution :)

congratulations, sexism is now over. You have beaten the evil whites. You win!

Fuck. These. People.

I’ve lost track, am I even allowed an opinion these days? Whatever. How about this radical idea: Let’s treat each other equally, and then we’ll all be equal? All this mindless mud-slinging achieves nothing and only serves to demonstrate how true objectives of those involved (notably NOT equality). 




You guys are good at this! :)

this isnt okay and you need to fuckin stop.



it got better

It just keeps getting better. More, more!

I just want to sit back and watch these roll in.



Colonialism began with conquest and is today maintained by a settler administration created out of the doctrine of cultural hierarchy, a hierarchy in which European Americans and whiteness dominate non-European Americans and darkness. As a result, we live in a country where race prejudice, in the words of Fanon, obeys a flawless logic. For, after all, if inferior peoples must be exterminated, their cultures and habits of life, their languages and customs, their economies, indeed, every difference about them must be assaulted, confined, and obliterated. There must be a dominant culture and therefore a dominant people, a dominant religion, a dominant language, a dominant legal system, a dominant educational system, and so on, and so on. In other words, there must be dominance and subordination.

In a colonialist country such as the United States, white hegemony delineates this hierarchy. Thus, white people are the dominant group. Christianity is the dominant religion, capitalism is the dominant economy, militarism is the dominant form of diplomacy and the force underlying international relations. Violence is thus normal, and race prejudice, like race violence, is as American as apple pie.

No Doubt’s “Looking Hot” video and cultural appropriation


Two days ago, No Doubt pulled their offensive “Looking Hot” video and issued a apology, which has been posted possibly everywhere on the internet, but which I want to quote here as well so that I can outline everything about it that I found lacking:

As a multi-racial band our foundation is built upon both diversity and consideration for other cultures. Our intention with our new video was never to offend, hurt or trivialize Native American people, their culture or their history.   Although we consulted with Native American friends and Native American studies experts at the University of California, we realize now that we have offended people.  This is of great concern to us and we are removing the video immediately…  We sincerely apologize to the Native American community and anyone else offended by this video.  Being hurtful to anyone is simply not who we are.

First and foremost, when has No Doubt ever showed sensitivity to other cultures?  Gwen Stefani has indulged in demeaning cultural appropriation throughout her entire career, from her insensitive and inappropriate decision to wear a bindi as a fashion accessory, to her fetishized crew of Japanese backup dancers “The Harajuku Girls,” about whom she sang in “Rich Girl,” “I’d dress them wicked/I’d give them names,” thus denying four Japanese women both agency and humanity with one inane lyric.  Apparently the best way to showcase your admiration for a different culture’s fashion trends is to reinforce harmful stereotypes about the passivity of its women.  I mean, every time I want to show my appreciation of another culture, what I like to do is select people who can claim that heritage and have them follow me around silently, garbed in my own bizarre and misinformed conception of what their culture means!  I also like to give them new, infantilized American names that are difficult to pronounce in their native language, because nothing says “I appreciate you” like commoditizing a human and naming them after your own clothing line!

Also, the whole refrain of “we’re multi-racial” and “we asked our Native American friends if it was ok” is a classic example of tokenism and white privilege.  To think that you have the right to (mis)represent all Indigenous people based on your limited interactions with members of that group is deeply flawed – especially because the representation is not of any individual, but rather of a generalized stereotype that has existed since before our country’s inception.  The repeated use of the world “hurtful” only serves to augment this false sense of individual psychological damage, implying that the harm done was on an individual, emotional level instead of a systemic, cultural one.  It is not offensive to see a Native American woman bound in a sexualized manner because it might hurt some poor Indigenous woman’s feelings.  It’s offensive because it’s a continuation of an incredibly negative, widespread ideology that was used to justify the dispossession of the Native people’s land and the cultural dominance of colonial settlers.  It trivializes the dire conditions of Native American women, who are twice as likely to be raped as non-Native women and far less likely to receive help and who are targeted for violent and sexual crimes because of their ethnicity.  In the words of aboriginal scholar Emma Laroque:

the portrayal of the squaw is one of the most degraded, most despised and most dehumanized anywhere in the world.  The ‘squaw’ is the female counterpart to the Indian male ‘savage’ and as such she has no human face; she is lustful, immoral, unfeeling, and dirty.  Such grotesque dehumanization has rendered all Native women and girls vulnerable to gross physical, psychological, and sexual violence… I believe that there is a direct relationship between these horrible racist/sexist stereotypes and violence against Native women and girls.

(For more on this, I suggest reading this excellent post on spunkmate).  Furthermore, to compare the struggles of other people of color to Native Americans is to take a totalizing, uninformed, and clearly unengaged view of how oppression operates in America, especially since the issues faced by Indigenous people are often minimized or sanitized.

All this is fairly obvious, I feel, but what angered me the most was reading responses to the apology.  Several news sources put scare quotes around ‘hurtful’ or highlighted that the offense was merely a “claim,” refusing to even agree with the band in their deficient categorization of the offense inherent in their video.  I understand the concept of being unbiased, but it is precisely through maintaining that critical responses to white privilege are “hypersensitive” that we conceal the way in which it operates and create a situation in which the marginalization of other cultures is perceived as common sense.  Below is a comment on news article that I think best exemplifies all that’s wrong with this frame of reference:

No artist should apologize for their work. If a small group of people… get offended that’s their problem… This is a fashion, sexualized version of cowboys & indians and shouldn’t be taken very seriously to begin with. I am pretty aware that Native-Americans these days don’t dress like that and if you do then you are a moron. It’s rock and roll fantasy and nothing else.

To act as though we live in a post-racial, postmodern society in which “art” is exempt from the structures of racial and gendered dominance through which everyone apprehends reality is beyond naïve.  There is a reason that “cowboys and sexy Indians” is a cultural trope: because white Americans have invented and revisited it constantly as a means of justifying and reinforcing the destruction of Native American lives and culture.  Especially since there are few – if any – accurate and positive portrayals of Indigenous people in pop culture, to say that we all know better and that the image of a sexualized, bound Native American woman is a harmless fantasy fails to take into the account the way in which media like the “Looking Hot” video structure two separate fantasies: that of the pervasive, still present fantasy of the sexualized squaw (statistics show that 70% of the sexual violence committed against Native women is committed by non-Natives) as well as that of the world in which cultural appropriation is harmless and all in good fun.  Cultural appropriation is not, and never will be, fun, nor will it ever be harmless.  It is a means through which those in power trivialize and exert dominance over other cultures, disregarding the trappings that are too foreign, bizarre, and contemptible to them, failing to understand or even care about their significance and historical context, and demonstrating that they have the right to claim whatever they desire as their own, all in the name of “fashion” or “playfulness.”

I just want to highlight this bit:

It is not offensive to see a Native American woman bound in a sexualized manner because it might hurt some poor Indigenous woman’s feelings.  It’s offensive because it’s a continuation of an incredibly negative, widespread ideology that was used to justify the dispossession of the Native people’s land and the cultural dominance of colonial settlers.