AND they added a response by a trans* woman…yay! :-)
Yeah… I don’t know. I kind of hate-recap it. I don’t hate it that much, but I just… I feel like I knew those people in high school, and I hated them in high school, and now they have a TV show. And I’m just like, good for you. You got a show. But then you’ve got the whole culture of “It’s un-feminist to criticize another woman, we should all just be happy that a woman is on television and leave it at that. You guys are just jealous.” So if you say anything that’s critical or against this, you’re automatically painted with that brush. But being a woman doesn’t mean that you’re absolved of any and all criticism — you can still fuck up, and still need to be called out.
But I think that the problem is that people really do identify with Lena Dunham, and so they feel that rightful criticisms of her are somehow a criticism of them — which it often is. I see a lot of the same middle-class, white feminists defending her because, to them, she is finally a chance to see themselves in a more unique, real role on television. She really is doing it for them. But it leaves so many people out of the conversation, and to paint Girls as finally being a story for everyone is so unfair.
I think that having to admit the things that Lena Dunham is doing or saying wrong also means looking at those things in yourself, and no one wants to do that. So it’s easier to defend her in saying that, if you criticize her, it’s because you have a problem with women. It’s the painless way out. And yes, a lot of people have gone in on her, but that’s because for months leading up to the show, they hyped it up so much as the show that was going to change everything. And personally speaking, I don’t think it’s lived up to any of its expectations. I don’t think that it’s nearly as funny as people have been saying, or as different. But again, it’s not a criticism you can make because it is “un-feminist” to make any judgments on it.
But just look at the marketing they do — a 45-dollar set of promotional nail polish, one for each girl on the show. You’re supposed to buy those as a fan. Who the fuck buys 45-dollar nail polish? And they did, like, free blowouts at this really nice salon. Who are they marketing this to? Like, this is not for me. Whoever this was directed to, it is absolutely not me. You are clearly targeting a certain type of person — they know what they are doing. And that’s fine, you have your demographic. But then don’t fucking turn around and tell me how universal your show is and how it’s speaking for everyone. Because it’s not, and you know it.
Franchesca Ramsey on Girls (via andthenwesetheartsaside)
I DON’T KNOW IF I’VE PUSHED THIS INTERVIEW ENOUGH BUT EVERYONE PLS GO READ IT SHE IS AMAZING
A study released Thursday at the Brookings Institution by a group of economists found that income inequality hasn’t just widened in recent decades but the gap appears to be permanent.
The economists, including two from the Federal Reserve Board, tracked the annual tax returns of 34,000 households from 1987 through 2009 and found a rise in “permanent inequality,” or high-earning Americans becoming better off while lower-wage workers became worse off. They found that income inequality is long-lasting and the gap isn’t just the result of short-term unemployment or other temporary issues among lower-wage earners.
So the entire idea - the entire concept the right wing is building their platform on - that poor Americans are just lazy and entitled and need to work harder - it’s completely untrue. This is why cutting programs for the poor while sustaining tax cuts for the wealthy (AKA the fiscal cliff and the sequester) is so abhorrent. There’s only the most infinitesimal chance that you will end up a self-made millionaire if you’re born poor.
Unless you’re ready to defend the idea that every single poor person in America just doesn’t want to work hard, supporting cutting aid in the name of “well it’s better for them because it gives them an incentive to work harder” is absolutely nonsensical.
great resources available from the perspective of african midwives…
A collection of Otis’s most precious moments.
- Regarding the food prices foisted on First Nation peoples.
I’m about to lose my shit.
And before people are like “lololol North Dakota who lives there anyway?”
You know what particular population North Dakota is higher than most in?
And Native women have astronomical rates of violence and rape against them.
So basically people who dismiss North Dakota don’t give a fuck about these women.
this is gross.
Learn to take a joke!
It’s just the internet!
A lot of MRAs like to cite a supposed statistic from a report done by the CDC on sexual violence in 2010 that apparently states that as many men get raped per year as women do. So I looked at the report, and here’s what I found.
Identifying as a person of color in solidarity with other people of color says ‘hey, my people have been oppressed by White people, maybe in a different time and space than your people, but we can work in solidarity.’ The identification needs to carry some degree of humility, and a deeper commitment to allyship . The POC umbrella is not an excuse to disavow the ways we benefit from various racial structures and sit idly by as our communities reap advantages from racism towards other people of color.
Black-Asian solidarity in the US, for instance, is hard to find and it will continue to be difficult to build if we continue to use the uncritical ‘POC’ label. Rather, we can use ‘POC’ as a way of reflecting on our different racial histories and building coalitions in our struggles and their difference. POC is a term for building solidarity between movements, not a movement in itself. That distinction is important.
Janani, Assistant Editor, Black Girl Dangerous. Read the whole thing here. (via filnana)
“How do we, as politicized people of color, acknowledge the very limits of the term ‘people of color’ and the way it can mask our actual racial situations? For example, why do we keep using the phrase ‘communities of color’ as targets of police and state violence when we primarily mean Black and Latino folks? What races are we trying to contain in the word ‘brown’? Why are we afraid to point to the specificities of racism? Do we think it will divide us? Do we think we are really not capable of understanding and working from the different ways we experience racism? “ (via nepantlastrategies)