So, April, as it turns out, has been dubbed Autism Awareness month. I'm not going to make this post on the 1st of April, because it is definitely not an April Fools Joke.
Anyway, April, so I've learned, tends to translate in the blogosphere and mainstream media into Extra Ableism Month. Mostly in that the voices of non autistic people remain privileged over those of people with autism. For more information from folks more qualified to talk about it than me, check out this and this.
Now, I'm not autistic. I kind of fall into the caretaker-advocate-relative ect catagory, being the elder sibling of an autistic brother, and having a number of friends and acquaintances with autism. So, to keep from contributing to this ick-tastic trend, I'm not going to talk about autism, and definitely not my experiences as a sibling or whatever. I am however, going to talk about the organization which more or less dominates Autism Awareness Month: Autism Speaks.
And boy oh boy, do we have some problems here.
For those who don't know: http://www.autismspeaks.org/index.php
What seems to be the problem? Well, how about for starters, for an organization called Autism Speaks there are really....not a whole lot of autistic people speaking here. Scouring their entire website, in fact, I have failed to find a single quote from a person with autism. Every. Single. Quote. on the whole damn site is from a family member or staff member, and a disturbing number of them are things like this:
"This disorder has taken our children away. It's time to get them back."...um...what? My brother has autism. I still have a brother. Are you trying to imply that an autistic child isn't your child anymore?
"It is painful to love so much, to want something so much, and not quite get it. You want your child to get better so much you may feel some of the stages commonly associated with grieving." Because obviously finding out your family member is autistic is exactly the same thing as finding out they have terminal cancer. And again with the sentiment that an autistic child is somehow not a real child.
Oh, and the organization not only loves to make really, highly unfavorable comparisons between autism and HIV/AIDs and autism and cancer, but they seem to be sporting a bit of a eugenicist bent with this whole, while it's gotten better about this, a majority of it's funding remains geared towards finding the genetic and biological causes of autism (as opposed to family services, individual services, education programs, expanding treatment options for currently alive people ect) the goal seeming to be to develop a prenatal test. While obviously a pregnant person has the choice to abort for any reason, that this is the funding distribution of a group that claims to be there to help, it does make them seem less interested in serving autistic people and their families than in making autistic people stop existing. Is that really who should be the voice for autism here?
Is Autism Speaks doing some good things? Of course. Advocating for anti-discrimination policies, providing resources and support for parents and families to help them be good parents in a situation they weren't expecting, raising awareness ect, are all good things. But in so far as treating people with autism as people rather than as tragedies inflicted on those around them goes? Looks like they sorely need to clean up their act.
In the mean time, probably the best thing the rest of use can do is to learn more about autism from people who actually experience it and want to talk about it, and try to promote such voices being heard over the constantly heard voices of caretakers.
http://tal9000.wordpress.com/
http://quixoticautistic.blogspot.com/
http://adeepercountry.blogspot.com/
http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?page_id=2
http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/
http://theasman.blogspot.com/
And, we can spend the month of April to be extra careful to point out the ableism we encounter, especially anti-autism ableism, and especially in places purpoting to be spreading 'autism awareness'.
I will start by apologizing for not including a trigger warning on my last post. The comments section of the linked article definitely has some iffy stuff going on, and there are one or two comments in the article itself that seem to be having a laugh at the expense on autistic folks. Gonna go fix that now.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Sharing an article
Because it speaks much more eloquently than me about the Akira remake, brings up many point I forgot, including that ultimately this will turn into a 9/11 movie. Trigger warning: one section has what looks like a joke at the expense of autistic folks, and the comment section can get really ugly. 5 Urgent Questions about the Live Action Akira Remake
Seriously. Taking a movie that is basically about all Japanese disasters ever but particularly about how the had fucking nuclear bombs dropped on them BY the U.S and making it into a movie about U.S tragedy? That's honestly just straight up sick.
Seriously. Taking a movie that is basically about all Japanese disasters ever but particularly about how the had fucking nuclear bombs dropped on them BY the U.S and making it into a movie about U.S tragedy? That's honestly just straight up sick.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
There's no Monopoly of religious intolerance
So, I don't have a tumblr to reblog from, but this is something that's been bothering me personally for a while, so I thought I'd share it here.
Most of my friends are atheists or atheist leaning agnostics.I am not.
I have no problem respecting and acknowledging their beliefs. Many of them seem to have an actual problem not mocking me.Or my family. Or my theist friends and acquaintances, and in fact, claim it as their right to do so, to their faces. Because it's all in good fun right?
This isn't to deny that the dominant religion in a given area (Christianity, in the U.S and most Western countries) has boatloads of privilege over atheism, and that atheism is among the most popular rhetorical whipping boys. But I will say that I think atheism is still more privileged than many other non-dominant religions. Look at how Muslims are being treated in the U.S. Look at media portrayals of Paganism, Voodoo, Satanism, and other less understood religions. Look at how seriously people take your peers who admit to being neither Christian, nor Atheist.
And really? Isn't it just the teensy tiniest bit hypocritical to act as though your beliefs (atheism still constitutes belief, just not in a deity) give you the right to dismiss other peoples out of hand?
There is so much more I want to write about this, but I also really don't want to get into shit with said friends. I'll try to come up with a more compelling list of reasons as to why everyone should respect everyone else's beliefs in the near future.
Though really, mutual respect and the desire to treat people fairly and decently should be enough, yeah?
Most of my friends are atheists or atheist leaning agnostics.I am not.
I have no problem respecting and acknowledging their beliefs. Many of them seem to have an actual problem not mocking me.Or my family. Or my theist friends and acquaintances, and in fact, claim it as their right to do so, to their faces. Because it's all in good fun right?
This isn't to deny that the dominant religion in a given area (Christianity, in the U.S and most Western countries) has boatloads of privilege over atheism, and that atheism is among the most popular rhetorical whipping boys. But I will say that I think atheism is still more privileged than many other non-dominant religions. Look at how Muslims are being treated in the U.S. Look at media portrayals of Paganism, Voodoo, Satanism, and other less understood religions. Look at how seriously people take your peers who admit to being neither Christian, nor Atheist.
And really? Isn't it just the teensy tiniest bit hypocritical to act as though your beliefs (atheism still constitutes belief, just not in a deity) give you the right to dismiss other peoples out of hand?
There is so much more I want to write about this, but I also really don't want to get into shit with said friends. I'll try to come up with a more compelling list of reasons as to why everyone should respect everyone else's beliefs in the near future.
Though really, mutual respect and the desire to treat people fairly and decently should be enough, yeah?
Friday, March 25, 2011
The Hunger Games
While I'm talking about race and casting (specifically racist casting) I should probably say something about the Hunger Games movie as well. I don't know how I missed both the news that there was going to be a movie, and the subsequent casting fail last week.
If you haven't read the Hunger Games trilogy: Do. Go now. Yes, I know they're YA, go read them anyway for they are fantastic. I confess, having read them I kind aspire to be Collins.
They also handle issues of race and class in a remarkably adept and subtle way, especially for scifi. Which is why I am so disappointed to see the way casting for the movie has been handled.
I don't think it's wrong per se, for Katniss to be played by a White actress. Her race is never specified, and her description is relatively ambiguous, which I think is one of the books strengths. What is undoubtedly wrong, is that no one else was even given a chance. I mean, seriously, you have a character described as having "straight black hair, olive skin, and gray eyes" and you don't see fit to extend the casting call to, say, Native American, Hispanic, Mediterranean, and biracial actresses as well?
We're talking about a story set in the middle future United States, and a character from what was once the Appalachian region (which happens to be plenty racially diverse already) who is described this way, when her mother and sister are described as being pale and blonde. Sure, it's not impossible that Katniss would be Caucasian, but doesn't it seem more likely that she be biracial? Moreover, how often do you even get the opportunity to cast someone in as an action lead from a young adult series who -isn't- explicitly described as blonde and blue eyed?
This is a hugely missed opportunity. Missed to search out new actresses, missed to demonstrate any kind of fair opportunity casting practices, missed to get a woman of color on screen in a leading, powerful role where she would have been perfectly in place anyway.
If you haven't read the Hunger Games trilogy: Do. Go now. Yes, I know they're YA, go read them anyway for they are fantastic. I confess, having read them I kind aspire to be Collins.
They also handle issues of race and class in a remarkably adept and subtle way, especially for scifi. Which is why I am so disappointed to see the way casting for the movie has been handled.
I don't think it's wrong per se, for Katniss to be played by a White actress. Her race is never specified, and her description is relatively ambiguous, which I think is one of the books strengths. What is undoubtedly wrong, is that no one else was even given a chance. I mean, seriously, you have a character described as having "straight black hair, olive skin, and gray eyes" and you don't see fit to extend the casting call to, say, Native American, Hispanic, Mediterranean, and biracial actresses as well?
We're talking about a story set in the middle future United States, and a character from what was once the Appalachian region (which happens to be plenty racially diverse already) who is described this way, when her mother and sister are described as being pale and blonde. Sure, it's not impossible that Katniss would be Caucasian, but doesn't it seem more likely that she be biracial? Moreover, how often do you even get the opportunity to cast someone in as an action lead from a young adult series who -isn't- explicitly described as blonde and blue eyed?
This is a hugely missed opportunity. Missed to search out new actresses, missed to demonstrate any kind of fair opportunity casting practices, missed to get a woman of color on screen in a leading, powerful role where she would have been perfectly in place anyway.
Why Race Matters in Akira
Pre-script? Disclaimer? : It might be hypocritical for me to be writing about this as if I know what I'm talking about. As a White U.S.-ian, I have no claim beyond admiration to the original Akira manga and movie, or the circumstances around their creation. Nor do I have any claim to speak for the Asian, and Asian-American actors and audiences being jilted by this movie. But the situation strikes me as, to be blunt, fueled by racism, and to not point that out would be basically the same as condoning it. If anyone reading this feels I've overstepped my bounds here, please call me on it.
Post contains spoilers for those who have not seen/read the Akira film and or manga.
So, I'm pretty sure most people who read this are familiar with the history of whitewashing in the U.S film industry. If nothing else, you're probably at least aware of the recent controversies around the Last Airbender and Prince of Persia films.
Now, as in the case of the Last Airbender travesty, I don't find 'It's a fantasy world, so everyone must be white by default' a tenable argument by any means. But even it has more excuse than the bullshit that looks to be happening in the WB's adaptation of Akira.
I'll just be upfront about this: I adore Akira. Thanks to a fanboy babysitter, I more or less grew up with Japanese cartoons, comics, and videogames, but Akira was my real introduction to the incredible depth, beauty and power of animation as a filmic form, and to the complex world of 'grown up' anime. This movie/manga introduced me to my now much beloved apocolyptic scifi, and Tetsuo spawned a permenant fangirl love for anti-hero's (different than underdogs), and otherwise seemingly amoral protagonists who are nonetheless vulnerable and loyal to their friends. I could go on and on and on and on, but suffice it to say; I freaking love Akira. So, I was briefly curious and excited when I heard about the possibility of it being remade, live action, by serious and competent filmakers. Until I saw the casting short lists for the lead roles:
For the role of Tetsuo: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield and James McAvoy.
For the role of Kaneda: Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix Thanks to Racebending for the info
....No. A thousand times no.
Where do I start with what's wrong with this? I guess I can sort of break it down into two sections, but those still overlap a lot. A) as an anime fan and casual academic, I believe this does great injustice to the original work, and the literary tradition in which it is situated. B) It's racist as shit. These are a bit hard for me to separate, because what's not racist about basically erasing the cultural and historical context out of which a work was born? If the proposed blanket Americanization of Akira isn't indicative of the belief in some kind of cultural superiority, I don't know what is.
So, here goes:
(Section A is based on my forays into manga and anime studies, in which I am by no means an expert, just a slightly educated fan. I apologize for the lack of citations, I don't have my source materials on me now, and this is from memory, and thus not as detailed, or accurate as it could be.)
A) Why this disrespects the original in specific, and the Japanese entertainment industry in general.
Okay, this is a big one. A really really big one: Bomb Imagery. Guess what U.S? We don't have the cultural/historical trauma of being the only country in the world to have had a nuclear bomb dropped on us. Two, actually. And to be familiar with Akira and say that it's plot and imagery is somehow separable from nuclear anxiety is to be ignorant of history. Akira is one of a an entire genre of Japanese apocalyptic films that refer to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first such of these that I know of being Godzilla, the opening scene of which is of a devastated city, very much reminiscent of footage taken of the aftermath of the bombings. Bomb imagery and anxiety has influenced much of Japanese horror and science fiction since the end of WWII. Akira is clearly part of this tradition, with the opening shot being destroyed by and atomic bomb, Neo-Tokyo being set in a massive crater after WWIII, the primary conflict being driven by a combination of human experimentation with technology who's power they don't understand, and can't control (played out on multiple levels by the gov'ts inability to control Tetsuo, and Tetsuo's giddy power binge which he ultimately can't control either) and the climactic end being an explosion that looks very much like depictions of a nuclear one. To remove this story from Japan and set it in Neo-Manhattan, with white actors, as the WB production intends, is to undermine the very real power behind those images for Japan, and ignore a rich and established film and literary tradition in favor of...what? Some weird need for familiarity? As if we can't be expected to empathize with human tragedies if they didn't happen to U.S-ians?. Not to mention more than a little twistedly appropriative, considering you know, it was the U.S that dropped those bombs.
Speaking of ignoring the legitimacy of other peoples story telling traditions, it bears mentioning that in the originals, the main characters are all about 15. Yeah. Do any of the actors listed above look like they could pull that off to you? Why is this important? Well, let's have a look at the (especially prevalent in manga and anime) tradition of the 'monstrous youth'. Think of some well known anime characters...lets just throw out: Naruto (naruto), Lain (serial experiments lain), and Nia (guren laggan). What do these three characters have in common? They are all youths (12-14 ish) whose relationship to self and others is mediated by their own unwilling monstrosity. Naruto is a social outcast because he serves as the container for a the Kyuubi, a devastatingly powerful monster that sometimes posseses him when in dire straights. Lain, it turns out, is not a person at all but a program, and Nia is the arguably artificial creation of one of the series 'big bads' not quite human, animal, or what have you. Now, of course, monstrosity means different things when applied to all of them, but change and hybridization of consistent. This isn't to say that the trope of the 'monstrous youth' exists only in Japanese story telling, but it has had and continues to have a significant presence there, which was particularly telling at the time of Akira's being written and published. Tetsuo is truly a monstrous youth, given a terrible power over which he cannot control and which is ultimately destructive, as the result of human meddling with dangerous technology. This corresponds to both the trials of adolescence, but particularly the trials of adolescence and inter-generational strife between those growing up in the post-war period, and those who had lived through it. Tetsuo's monstrosity can be read as representative of the perceived 'lostness' of rebellious youth during the recession, and how alien they must have seemed to their parents who had lived through the war. So, taking the story out of Japan and changing the characters races and ages again undermines both longstanding literary traditions, and lessons the emotional impact of several story elements that depend in part on cultural and historical context
B) Why these casting decisions would be overtly racist, even without the whole ignoring-context-and-dismissing-of-Japanese-literary-traditions-because-we-only-like-American-shit-thing.
Casting white characters in these roles contributes to a long history of whitewashing in U.S cinema. We saw it Airbender and Prince of Persia. Before that we saw it in Lawrence of Arabia, Breakfast at Tiffanys, Bullet Proof Monk, 30 Days of Night, Starship Troopers, 21, the Dragon Ball Z movie, and I'm sure many more. In the last couple years, a little under 2% of big grossing films have had Asian American leads. Which is weird, since that's not exactly representative of the U.S population. Asian-American actors (well, really all actors who aren't caucasian) are routinely funneled into supporting roles, and often typecast or tokenized. The underlying belief seems to be that only white faces are bankable. The underlying belief to that being that apparently U.S movie goers can only empathize with White people, and nobody else's existence really needs to be seriously acknowledged anyway. Which kind of implies that only White people are people. Since, you know. Empathy.
The best part? As seen above, the main characters are keeping their Japanese names. Because that, in combination with everything else about the movie, isn't remotely appropriative or anything.
It's not even believable. At all. It's not like Manhattan is a white-only city. I strongly doubt a Neo-Manhatten would be either. There is really, really, no reason to cast White actors in the roles of Kaneda and Tetsuo besides simply not wanting Asian-American actors to have them. And guess what? That's racist. Seriously, break the cycle. Give the roles to some of the many great but underrated Asian-American actors. Or open up casting calls to look for new talent completely. I'm more than willing to bet that the unbankability of actors of color is one fabricated and perpetuated by Hollywoods refusal to take 'risks' on actors of color in leading roles.
TL;DR: By taking Akira and setting it in the U.S with white actors we completely dismiss the longstanding and totally worthy body of work to which it is attached, apparently solely because that body of work is Japanese, not U.S-ian, and perpetuate the marginalization of actors of color, and the media under-representation of people of color as a whole. Which, you know, demonstrates massive problems of empathy and social status. Use your consumer power and tell the entertainment industry to stop pulling this shit.
Stuff to do about it:
Join the FB petition, use numbers to show WB that their audience won't stand for these discriminatory policies
Post contains spoilers for those who have not seen/read the Akira film and or manga.
So, I'm pretty sure most people who read this are familiar with the history of whitewashing in the U.S film industry. If nothing else, you're probably at least aware of the recent controversies around the Last Airbender and Prince of Persia films.
Now, as in the case of the Last Airbender travesty, I don't find 'It's a fantasy world, so everyone must be white by default' a tenable argument by any means. But even it has more excuse than the bullshit that looks to be happening in the WB's adaptation of Akira.
I'll just be upfront about this: I adore Akira. Thanks to a fanboy babysitter, I more or less grew up with Japanese cartoons, comics, and videogames, but Akira was my real introduction to the incredible depth, beauty and power of animation as a filmic form, and to the complex world of 'grown up' anime. This movie/manga introduced me to my now much beloved apocolyptic scifi, and Tetsuo spawned a permenant fangirl love for anti-hero's (different than underdogs), and otherwise seemingly amoral protagonists who are nonetheless vulnerable and loyal to their friends. I could go on and on and on and on, but suffice it to say; I freaking love Akira. So, I was briefly curious and excited when I heard about the possibility of it being remade, live action, by serious and competent filmakers. Until I saw the casting short lists for the lead roles:
For the role of Tetsuo: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield and James McAvoy.
For the role of Kaneda: Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix Thanks to Racebending for the info
....No. A thousand times no.
Where do I start with what's wrong with this? I guess I can sort of break it down into two sections, but those still overlap a lot. A) as an anime fan and casual academic, I believe this does great injustice to the original work, and the literary tradition in which it is situated. B) It's racist as shit. These are a bit hard for me to separate, because what's not racist about basically erasing the cultural and historical context out of which a work was born? If the proposed blanket Americanization of Akira isn't indicative of the belief in some kind of cultural superiority, I don't know what is.
So, here goes:
(Section A is based on my forays into manga and anime studies, in which I am by no means an expert, just a slightly educated fan. I apologize for the lack of citations, I don't have my source materials on me now, and this is from memory, and thus not as detailed, or accurate as it could be.)
A) Why this disrespects the original in specific, and the Japanese entertainment industry in general.
Okay, this is a big one. A really really big one: Bomb Imagery. Guess what U.S? We don't have the cultural/historical trauma of being the only country in the world to have had a nuclear bomb dropped on us. Two, actually. And to be familiar with Akira and say that it's plot and imagery is somehow separable from nuclear anxiety is to be ignorant of history. Akira is one of a an entire genre of Japanese apocalyptic films that refer to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first such of these that I know of being Godzilla, the opening scene of which is of a devastated city, very much reminiscent of footage taken of the aftermath of the bombings. Bomb imagery and anxiety has influenced much of Japanese horror and science fiction since the end of WWII. Akira is clearly part of this tradition, with the opening shot being destroyed by and atomic bomb, Neo-Tokyo being set in a massive crater after WWIII, the primary conflict being driven by a combination of human experimentation with technology who's power they don't understand, and can't control (played out on multiple levels by the gov'ts inability to control Tetsuo, and Tetsuo's giddy power binge which he ultimately can't control either) and the climactic end being an explosion that looks very much like depictions of a nuclear one. To remove this story from Japan and set it in Neo-Manhattan, with white actors, as the WB production intends, is to undermine the very real power behind those images for Japan, and ignore a rich and established film and literary tradition in favor of...what? Some weird need for familiarity? As if we can't be expected to empathize with human tragedies if they didn't happen to U.S-ians?. Not to mention more than a little twistedly appropriative, considering you know, it was the U.S that dropped those bombs.
Speaking of ignoring the legitimacy of other peoples story telling traditions, it bears mentioning that in the originals, the main characters are all about 15. Yeah. Do any of the actors listed above look like they could pull that off to you? Why is this important? Well, let's have a look at the (especially prevalent in manga and anime) tradition of the 'monstrous youth'. Think of some well known anime characters...lets just throw out: Naruto (naruto), Lain (serial experiments lain), and Nia (guren laggan). What do these three characters have in common? They are all youths (12-14 ish) whose relationship to self and others is mediated by their own unwilling monstrosity. Naruto is a social outcast because he serves as the container for a the Kyuubi, a devastatingly powerful monster that sometimes posseses him when in dire straights. Lain, it turns out, is not a person at all but a program, and Nia is the arguably artificial creation of one of the series 'big bads' not quite human, animal, or what have you. Now, of course, monstrosity means different things when applied to all of them, but change and hybridization of consistent. This isn't to say that the trope of the 'monstrous youth' exists only in Japanese story telling, but it has had and continues to have a significant presence there, which was particularly telling at the time of Akira's being written and published. Tetsuo is truly a monstrous youth, given a terrible power over which he cannot control and which is ultimately destructive, as the result of human meddling with dangerous technology. This corresponds to both the trials of adolescence, but particularly the trials of adolescence and inter-generational strife between those growing up in the post-war period, and those who had lived through it. Tetsuo's monstrosity can be read as representative of the perceived 'lostness' of rebellious youth during the recession, and how alien they must have seemed to their parents who had lived through the war. So, taking the story out of Japan and changing the characters races and ages again undermines both longstanding literary traditions, and lessons the emotional impact of several story elements that depend in part on cultural and historical context
B) Why these casting decisions would be overtly racist, even without the whole ignoring-context-and-dismissing-of-Japanese-literary-traditions-because-we-only-like-American-shit-thing.
Casting white characters in these roles contributes to a long history of whitewashing in U.S cinema. We saw it Airbender and Prince of Persia. Before that we saw it in Lawrence of Arabia, Breakfast at Tiffanys, Bullet Proof Monk, 30 Days of Night, Starship Troopers, 21, the Dragon Ball Z movie, and I'm sure many more. In the last couple years, a little under 2% of big grossing films have had Asian American leads. Which is weird, since that's not exactly representative of the U.S population. Asian-American actors (well, really all actors who aren't caucasian) are routinely funneled into supporting roles, and often typecast or tokenized. The underlying belief seems to be that only white faces are bankable. The underlying belief to that being that apparently U.S movie goers can only empathize with White people, and nobody else's existence really needs to be seriously acknowledged anyway. Which kind of implies that only White people are people. Since, you know. Empathy.
The best part? As seen above, the main characters are keeping their Japanese names. Because that, in combination with everything else about the movie, isn't remotely appropriative or anything.
It's not even believable. At all. It's not like Manhattan is a white-only city. I strongly doubt a Neo-Manhatten would be either. There is really, really, no reason to cast White actors in the roles of Kaneda and Tetsuo besides simply not wanting Asian-American actors to have them. And guess what? That's racist. Seriously, break the cycle. Give the roles to some of the many great but underrated Asian-American actors. Or open up casting calls to look for new talent completely. I'm more than willing to bet that the unbankability of actors of color is one fabricated and perpetuated by Hollywoods refusal to take 'risks' on actors of color in leading roles.
TL;DR: By taking Akira and setting it in the U.S with white actors we completely dismiss the longstanding and totally worthy body of work to which it is attached, apparently solely because that body of work is Japanese, not U.S-ian, and perpetuate the marginalization of actors of color, and the media under-representation of people of color as a whole. Which, you know, demonstrates massive problems of empathy and social status. Use your consumer power and tell the entertainment industry to stop pulling this shit.
Stuff to do about it:
Join the FB petition, use numbers to show WB that their audience won't stand for these discriminatory policies
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Sharing this article
Because it's a great anti-misogyny article which everyone should read, cis, trans, boy, girl, what have you.
Transmisogyny is misogyny against all women
Transmisogyny is misogyny against all women
Friday, March 4, 2011
Stuff this Week Feb 28- Mar 4 2011
Three things you can do:
1. Help demonstrate the existence of a viable market for vegetarian and vegan fast food! People will always be drawn to fast food, and vegetarianism is often seen only as status symbol and privilege of the rich, so why not promote healthier, more environmentally friendly alternatives that are quick, convenient, not hugely expensive, and last but definitely not least: culturally accessible! If you have a blog or social networking account, consider writing a post to make this market more visible.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/i-want-a-vegetarianvegan-fast-food-restaurant/
2. So, Palin calls her followers 'Mama Grizzlies', I disagree, and would call Palin pretty anti-grizzly. If you love nature/care about the environment, how about taking the pledge bellow to protect it, and turn some of this silly rhetoric on itself?
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/899/673/665/
3. I have nothing witty to say about this: violence is pretty much always bad, life in the global south is full of daily trails those of us living in post-industrial nations would be hard pressed to even comprehend, and hate based oppression exists everywhere. Please try to improve life for one small section of the queer population, and the population of the global south by signing this petition urging leaders to crack down on anti-queer abuses, or write a letter to your senator, President, the UN, or anyone else you can think of urging pressure on leaders to denounce such violence.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/445/759/082/
Three things that are going right:
1. Not everyone thinks that teachers, unions, and public employees are satan spawn!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?scp=1&sq=poll%20and%20collective%20bargaining&st=cse
2. A case of hate-legislation stopped in it's tracks, and a victory for marriage equality!
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/03/Wyoming_Senate_Kills_Antigay_Bill/
3. Fantastic actress of color given the role of an awesome character, helping to break the white monopoly in the comic book world! Also Wonder Woman always needs more love. Fingers crossed that the increasingly stellar casting for this show saves it from some hints at questionable writing.
http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/3626724817/ettacandy
1. Help demonstrate the existence of a viable market for vegetarian and vegan fast food! People will always be drawn to fast food, and vegetarianism is often seen only as status symbol and privilege of the rich, so why not promote healthier, more environmentally friendly alternatives that are quick, convenient, not hugely expensive, and last but definitely not least: culturally accessible! If you have a blog or social networking account, consider writing a post to make this market more visible.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/i-want-a-vegetarianvegan-fast-food-restaurant/
2. So, Palin calls her followers 'Mama Grizzlies', I disagree, and would call Palin pretty anti-grizzly. If you love nature/care about the environment, how about taking the pledge bellow to protect it, and turn some of this silly rhetoric on itself?
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/899/673/665/
3. I have nothing witty to say about this: violence is pretty much always bad, life in the global south is full of daily trails those of us living in post-industrial nations would be hard pressed to even comprehend, and hate based oppression exists everywhere. Please try to improve life for one small section of the queer population, and the population of the global south by signing this petition urging leaders to crack down on anti-queer abuses, or write a letter to your senator, President, the UN, or anyone else you can think of urging pressure on leaders to denounce such violence.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/445/759/082/
Three things that are going right:
1. Not everyone thinks that teachers, unions, and public employees are satan spawn!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?scp=1&sq=poll%20and%20collective%20bargaining&st=cse
2. A case of hate-legislation stopped in it's tracks, and a victory for marriage equality!
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/03/Wyoming_Senate_Kills_Antigay_Bill/
3. Fantastic actress of color given the role of an awesome character, helping to break the white monopoly in the comic book world! Also Wonder Woman always needs more love. Fingers crossed that the increasingly stellar casting for this show saves it from some hints at questionable writing.
http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/3626724817/ettacandy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)