It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that Stephen Hawkings can declare women to be “a complete mystery”, and have newspapers gleefully latch on to this, declaring women “the greatest mystery known to man”. It is a common refrain for men to bleat about not understanding women, but this is because they have simply never tried, because society has trained them to never look at life through the eyes of a woman.
I’m sick of people saying Snape was the worst friendzone ever. They weren’t friends anymore. He was hanging around death eaters and was dabbling in dark arts. The friendship wasn’t healthy anymore.
That doesn’t make it unhealthy… He was being tortured by her boyfriend and his friends and he couldn’t take it anymore so he found people who liked him the way he was. She dumped him as a friend, not the other way around. He called her mudblood, but it was pretty obvious he attempted to apologize and make up for it. SHE DATED A BULLY OVER A GUY WHO JUST WANTED A FRIEND.
First off, “her boyfriend” is inaccurate: when Lily ended her friendship with Snape, she wasn’t dating James. The friendship ended towards the end of their fifth year (“Snape’s Worst Memory” depicts OWLs), while Lily and James didn’t begin dating until their seventh year (canonically, after James had “deflated his head” and begun maturing.)* Lily wasn’t friends with the Marauders at this point. And, as for “he found people who liked him the way he was” - he was already friends with Lily. And…if the “way he was” includes an interest in the Dark Arts and hexing people, then perhaps Snape needed to actually revise who he was instead of finding people who encouraged that? Lily tries to talk to him about this, but he clearly doesn’t listen (see the moment where he turns off as soon as she agrees about disparaging James.)
Secondly, by their fifth year, the Snape/Lily friendship was toxic and unhealthy. Snape was growing more heavily involved in the Dark Arts and with people who were basically proto-Death Eaters (Rosier, Mulciber, etc.) These are people who are devoted to spewing what is the Wizarding world’s equivalent of racist rhetoric - the people who advocate murder and genocide of Lily and people like her. She dumped him as a friend because he called her Mudblood, but it wasn’t simply because of that - it’s clearly the last straw in a long line of issues Lily has been having with Snape (between Snape condoning what Mulciber did to Mary MacDonald - harmful Dark Magic that Snape dismisses as a prank; Snape calling other Muggle-borns “Mudblood” and using the same rhetoric as his friends; Snape using Dark Magic himself, which Lily abhors.)
Lily’s “I can’t pretend any more” shows that this, and things like this, have been an ongoing issue:
I’ve made excuses for you for years. None of my friends can understand why I even talk to you. You and your precious little Death Eater friends – you see, you don’t even deny it! You don’t even deny that’s what you’re all aiming to be! You can’t wait to join You-Know-Who, can you?
Emphasis there on years. Lily has spent years trying to ignore what she knows about Snape, trying to overlook the things he’s said and done, and this - calling her a slur to her face - is a moment of awakening. It’s the point where Lily simply can’t ignore that Snape has become a person who’s no longer her friend - “You’ve chosen your way; I’ve chosen mine.” That James Potter, who she hates, was willing to defend her while Snape called her a slur and said he didn’t need help from someone like her: it’s not a one-off incident, it’s simply the breaking point.
At that point, apologizing for using the slur isn’t enough, especially when it’s clear that Snape isn’t cognizant of everything else he’s done, or particularly repentant of the other actions he’s done - and his apology isn’t an effort or a promise to change. (Also, Lily doesn’t owe him forgiveness; implying that Lily owes him forgiveness is treading very close to that whole “Lily friendzoned him! Lily was obligated to forgive him! Lily was obligated to fall in love with him!” argument, which is in and of itself complete and utter tripe.)
*whether and how much James improved will hopefully be expanded upon by Pottermore - on one hand, we know that the bullying continued; OTOH, per Sirius, Lily was explicitly not aware of this - cf. the “he didn’t exactly take Snape along with them on dates and hex him,” comments, among others.) And the “Elvendork! It’s unisex!” story shows someone who’s still immature, and James didn’t have a lot of time in which to mature and grow before his death. But then we also have the James who was loyal to his friends, willing to join the Order and fight and who stood up to Voldemort personally three times; who willingly laid down his life for his wife and infant, wandless, in the hopes of buying them a few moments to escape; who, per JKR and per the text, became a better person. But this isn’t about James and Lily, because at the point where Lily ends the friendship between her and Snape, she clearly still loathes James - she’s calling him an “arrogant bullying little toerag” at the same time she’s ending the friendship with Snape. This isn’t about Lily choosing James over Snape - it’s about Lily choosing to walk away from Snape. James wasn’t in the picture.
And Lily had every right to end that friendship. Lily didn’t choose “a bully over a guy who just wanted a friend” - she chose someone who actually respected her over someone who called her the equivalent of a racial slur and who joined an organization devoted to the murder of people like her. Look at their later actions: James loved Lily and gave his life trying to give her a chance to escape. Snape, despite professing love for Lily, would have been willing to let Lily’s child die if it meant that she could be saved. Is that considerate of Lily’s feelings or Lily herself? No - that’s treating Lily like an object - it’s obsession, not love.
(And, actually, at this point in fifth year, Lily doesn’t choose either of them - she chooses to walk away from an unhealthy friendship with Snape, and she chooses to ignore James until she sees that he’s changed. So there’s that. And…to suggest that Lily had to pick Snape or that she should have chosen him…no. Snape didn’t respect her. Snape became a full-fledged Death Eater who believed in the cause after graduation. Snape didn’t care about what Lily wanted - he cared about wanting Lily. (“You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? They can die, as long as you have what you want?” The answer to that is an obvious, emphatic yes - Snape would have been totally fine with letting Harry die had he been able to secure Lily’s safety. Dumbledore’s “You disgust me” is there for a reason.)
Also, the entire term “friendzone” is complete and utter bullshit, implying that Lily owed Snape romantic love and sex because he befriended her, but that could be another post entirely. (Nobody owes anyone else romantic love/sex because of friendship, people are not some magic vending machine you put friendship coins into until sex comes out, and Lily’s friendship is not some crappy second-place prize. Lily is not a prize. People are not prizes. That is all.)
Snape didn’t care about what Lily wanted - he cared about wanting Lily.
Observations From a Tipless Restaurant, Part 6: Why Tipping Should (And May) Be Made Illegal | Jay Porter
The point is this — we know that tipping rewards employees for being white and for being attractive females, and punishes them for being otherwise. We know that compensation by tipping lets employers speciously punish employees by assigning them to low revenue shifts, while still maintaining the legal fiction that the employee is making a full wage. Additionally, compensation by tips ensures that customers who are non-white, who are female, or old people, or young people, or foreigners all get a lower quality of service than medium-aged white men, in establishments that claim to welcome all peoples equally.
Let me show you what this congressperson [Rep. Steve King] is doing. Basically they’re pinning the problems that we have in this country on people who are poor. If you think about people who are poor really— you have 80 percent of people who are food insecure are actually working. That means their wages are so low that they’re eligible for food stamps. So you want to talk about dependency in this country? Let’s talk about corporations and businesses that pay such low wages that they depend on the United States government to add money to those wages through the Income Assistance Programs, like SNAP. So because if you take a company like Walmart, pays their workers so low that their workers are actually eligible for food stamps. Who’s dependent on the U.S. government? I’d have to say it’s Walmart is the welfare queen here.
Under Moffat’s watch the Doctor has morphed from an alien who loves humans and feels their pain and experiences love and desire and empathy to a stunted, child-like and extremely bloody irritating space-goon who flaps about like an injured moth when other people’s emotions are making him uncomfortable. And makes sexist jokes about how women are scary. And wants his married companions to sleep in bunk beds. And can save human lives but does not seem to understand human feelings. Who would travel with this man? He might be zany and charming and have nice boots, but he is fundamentally cold and unrelatable.
I also think the role of the assistant has changed since Steven Moffat started overseeing Doctor Who. Rose, Martha and Donna were chosen to travel with the Doctor because they showed in one way or another that they were smart and up to the challenge. Amy and Clara both come to the Doctor first and foremost as mysteries. Amy is the little girl who grew up with a rift in time in her bedroom wall, who doesn’t know why she doesn’t have parents. She spends many episodes being mystically both pregnant and not pregnant but doesn’t know a thing about it and all our information about it comes through the Doctor. What the fuck is that?
Some version of Clara dies on screen twice before she is taken on as the assistant, and it seems like the Doctor takes up with her to find out why. In both cases, the woman is not of interest for her character or her abilities, but for some fundamental mystery in her being. The mystery isn’t even a secret she’s keeping, something over which she has control- it’s something she does not know about, that the Doctor must puzzle out in his own mind. It’s not about her- it’s about what’s wrong with her. When Steven Moffat took over Doctor Who, women became a problem.
anonymous asked: What if you’ve never done anything racist in your whole life but everyone of a different race than you is always calling you a racist anyway?
How clueless do you have to be to experience this and still not question anything about your underlying assumptions and attitudes but just assume everyone else is the problem?
If we can’t write diversity into sci-fi, then what’s the point? You don’t create new worlds to give them all the same limits of the old ones.
anonymous asked: I think Ann Coulter has stupid hair. And ideas. But also hair.
Yeah, but mainly, let’s stop judging women, even evil, horrible, 100% asshole racists like Ann Coulter, in terms of their looks.
really sick of gun control arguments focusing on “crazies” in a way that dehumanises people with mental illnesses. can we instead talk about the many “sane”, “rational” people who are obsessed with violence and hatred but treated as voices of reason by the media, and the many, many people inspired by them who are far more common perpetrators of gun violence
tumblr you suck
why are you fucking with people who use MIssing E like this, fucking up the functionality of it when you know dude is just gonna fix it again, and we’re gonna update it again, and we’re gonna use that script that makes your little pop-up NOT pop up (guys i never ever see it anymore it’s awesome) and keep right on using Missing E?
why don’t you just fucking talk to the guy and get the Missing E features added to the damn site because clearly that is what your users want
why don’t you cut the shit
First off, I want to talk about an abortion ban that leaves exceptions in place only for instances of rape, incest or life of the mother. The first thing that I want to say about this policy is this: this is a pro-choice position. The proponents can call it whatever the hell they want, but the bottom line is that this position is pro-choice. A person who takes this position is acknowledging that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman. Herself. The rape/incest exception people – their position is that they get to decide if someone else’s (i.e., some other woman’s) reason is good enough. I am pro-her-choice. They are pro-their-choice.
In addition, however, to the extraordinary presumption and paternalism inherent in the position that you – whoever you are – should have more control than the pregnant woman over her reproductive future, is the absolutely, unequivocally impossible enforcement situation that this policy would create. So, we criminalize abortion but leave in place exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. As a policy matter, what does this mean?
Well, it involves me. That is pretty much a certainty, because I am a prosecutor and I prosecute people accused of crimes. So if we find ourselves in a situation where women who get abortions that don’t fall under one of those exceptions have committed a crime, then I’m going to be the one making the decisions about what happens next. That’s my job. And I have to say, I am more than a little bit uncomfortable about being legally mandated to prosecute other women because they have terminated a pregnancy when it is a bunch of non-pregnant people – many of whom are men who can’t even become pregnant – who don’t think her reason was “good enough” to be “legal”.
But, please, enlighten me. How do I decide if prosecution is warranted? And, by the way, how does a woman who qualifies for one of these exceptions go about availing herself of the exception? Are we going to take the pregnant woman’s word for it that she was raped (somehow I suspect that the answer to this question will be “no”)? Is there going to be a form that she has to fill out? Will she be placed under oath? Will there be post-abortion investigations by the police to ensure that she was truthful when she said that she was raped? If we aren’t going to just take her word for it, what will be the mechanism for fact finding we will use?
Will there be some sort of hearing, in a public courtroom, before a judge, where a woman is required to prove that she was raped? How much humiliation will we require the woman to endure during this hearing? Will her attire at the time of the “rape” be relevant? How about her reputation for chastity? Will Rule 412 apply? Will she be subject to cross-examination? Will she have the right to counsel, court appointed if she cannot afford to her own lawyer? Who will represent the interests of the state/fetus? Will it be someone like me, with a similar job title? What will the burden of proof be for the hearing? How will we expedite the hearing so that the abortion can occur within the appropriate time frame, given that there is a window of opportunity that cannot be missed? Will there be an appeal process? Has ANYONE who wants to criminalize abortion while leaving open some exceptions spent even seven seconds considering any of these questions?
Really, Hugo? Yes, women on the internet wanting to make people aware of your long and disgusting (and continuing to this day) history of abuse and condescension toward women is so threatening. Much more than say, a man who tried to murder an ex and has slept with multiple students and yet is still allowed to teach women’s studies classes.
OH FUCKING HELL NO
Schwyzer you piece of shit, you tried to KILL SOMEONE. You know what a real threat is because you’re a rapist and attempted murderer, but look at you, you’re drawing attention to women who want to push rapists and attempted murderers out of spaces where they come in contact with other women, and you’re implying THEY’RE the real danger? Jesus Christ.
This reminds me of when he wrote a column talking shit about a female colleague of his who couldn’t get over his ~pre-sobriety past~ and had the nerve to warn people who didn’t know that he is a creepy, entitled predator. It’s like, oh well what do you want from me, I “acknowledged” my “past” in really vague uncertain terms, so why do you have to keep bringing it up?
Like it really fucking bothers me is that anytime a woman behaves in a way he doesn’t like, or he gets a boner, he writes a FUCKING COLUMN about it. And people legitimise this shit by publishing it. Like, literally everything he writes is about how mean women are for either not giving him a free pass or not having sex with him exactly the way he wants.
I hate to talk about this like I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, but for the sake of argument: if you are a misogynist in recovery, and you respect women now, the way you show respect is by leaving women who don’t like you the fuck alone. And I think you can tell that these women don’t like you.
You don’t communicate with them, quote them on your blog, write whiny, smirky essays about them, or antagonize them at all. They get to decide that they can’t abide your presence. They get to decide that your work is not feminist. They get to decide you’re a horrible person. They get to decide that you are not welcome. You don’t get to complain about that. You don’t even get to “start a conversation” with these women who hate the sight of you and fear men like you. That is not amends. That is not respect. That is abusive behavior.
Can you imagine? What would the equivalent be, some quote-unquote recovering violent alcoholic trolling Al-Anon gatherings for people who are too hard on other violent alcoholics, and writing long weepy essays about how it felt to pummel your wife and children in a drunken fury, and what it really means and how much it hurts to be a violent alcoholic, and then going on the offensive when people try to shut you out? And then taking carefully-calibrated virtual potshots at the abuse survivors who just refuse to like or respect you or quietly tolerate your presence?
Recovery is not a club to beat your detractors with. It is not an argument. You don’t get to negotiate forgiveness, and you don’t get to take issue with women who look at what you’ve done and write you off.
Male privilege is the sexualization of Breast Cancer awareness.
it reminds me of what Randall Munroe said:
“The frustrating thing about the “Save the Boobies” campaign and similar things (like the “Booberday” meme going around G+) is that they get it exactly backward. Often, the point of breast cancer treatment is to destroy some or all of the boobies in order to save the woman.
Saying that we should work to cure this disease because it threatens breasts is really upsetting. For starters, it suggests that women are worth saving because they’re attached to breasts, rather than the other way around. But worse, it tells any woman who’s had a mastectomy to try to save her life that she’s lost the thing that made people care about her survival. What a punch in the stomach.”
Bless this post
This exemplifies everything I hate about the pinkification of breast cancer, and also, honestly, the Komen foundation.
The campaign is also gender essentialist. It seems to maintain that in order to get breast cancer, one must have what is stereotypically seen as breasts. That is simply untrue.
It sexualises a disease by privileging what apparently cis, straight, men see, through privileged glasses, what is important about breast cancer. The sexual appeal of keeping your breasts intact. Breasts are not the most important part of the breast cancer awareness movement (and, let’s be real, I am tired of “awareness” campaigns for things like this. I am pretty sure we are all aware that breast cancer exists. Where is the fight to actually further research or aid survivors and patients?), rather, the life that is being threatened is.
1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.
Thanks to my friend Travis for this helpful breakdown of where at least $5 million of Chick-fil-A profits have gone. Note that some of this money went directly to promoting the death penalty for gay people in Uganda.
In case you’re wondering why people are boycotting Chick-Fil-A.