This is so vague I love it. The voices you are hearing are real, god is speaking to you. The nation of France needs you. Don your armor, take up arms, lead the French army. This is your destiny, joan. When the flames come for you let them lick your bones and laugh.
I don’t think feminism stands to gain anything by pretending that it’s easy to be a feminist. When I see or hear things like “80% of the world is feminist, a feminist is anyone who believes women should be equal,” I’m not comforted. I don’t see what the movement has to gain by pretending that misogyny is not the default in most people, and that being a feminist is as easy as buying into a buzzword. Feminism is hard. It requires examining our own beliefs and behaviors, a constant struggle to root out misogynist and patriarchal beliefs and behaviors, analysis of how our actions and the actions of others are harmful to women, and a conscious effort to change. Not just one time, but every day. To pretend that anyone who “believes in equality” is automatically a feminist is to leave the status quo untouched, to dress up oppressive behavior as liberating if we affix a “likes women” badge to it. To pretend that the fix is easy is to ignore that the disease permeates every aspect of our society, and to avoid naming the problem and telling people that work is actually involved is to fail women in the name of making others comfortable.
I bet there were so many things the Marauders got up to that Lily didn’t know about. I can just imagine James reminiscing about his Hogwarts days and accidentally letting things slip and Lily going ‘That was you?!’
Bless the Marauders and their sneaky little hearts.
if men and women should have equal rights then why are you against men wanting rights? feminism isn't about women being better then men is it?...
im against men complaining about wanting ‘mens rights’ because it’s never about wanting anything other than to silence and talk over women.
if men’s rights activists worked to open crisis centers for male victims of abuse and survivors of sexual violence i would love that. if men’s rights activists worked toward support and parenting classes and education for single fathers that would be amazing. if men’s rights activists worked toward educating fellow men on practicing safe sex and consent i would be so on board. if men’s rights activists worked toward breaking down the chains of racism of their brothers of colour i would be so happy. if men’s rights activists advocated for anything of value i would be so down for it all.
instead men’s rights activists sit on the fucking internet talking over women and attempting to silence them and their oppression with arbitrary add-ons, bullshit about the friendzone, and useless fucking nonsense.
so no. i have zero use for men’s rights activists because it’s never about advocating for things men need and instead it’s always about making sure women shut up about what they need. they aren’t “men’s rights activists” they’re “anti women activists”. point blank.
finally feminism is not about women being better than men nor is it about being equal to men. feminism is about women being liberated from men. i have no desire to be considered “equal” to the system of power that allows men to abuse, murder, and rape us. i want liberation from patriarchy and men.
remember: if you’re attending a school that gives you a .edu email address, you can upgrade your amazon.com account to prime for free by going on and choosing the college/student membership. that means you get the prime 2-day shipping and even some textbook discounts (not to mention AFAIK you enjoy the amazon instant access for free for the duration of your edu email being active)
last night a guy said to me “you are very, very pretty” and i said “i know” and he said like patronisingly “you KNOW?” and i said “you think you’re the first person to ever compliment me?” and he didn’t know where to go from there
What is your opinion on white girls with box braids?
It took me a few days to answer this because at first, I was so set to just reply to this with a bunch of reaction images but then I decided that I’ll take your bait (because that’s what this question is. bait) and I figured, why not.
My opinion is that when white girls wear any hairstyle that is easily and traditionally identifiable with, naturally achieved and/or created by POC they usually do so with such ignorant and disrespectful disregard to the people who originated the fashion.
My opinionis that when white girls wear box braids, they do it for attention because they know, either consciously or subconsciously, that their skin color will grant them the privilege of being excused and revered for their appropriation.
My opinionis that when white girls wear box braids they further the dehumanizing and racist notion that Black hair is “bad, nasty and dirty” because they then turn around and complain about how “dirty” and “damaging” the styles are because they couldn’t wash their hair (for fear the braids unraveling or slipping out), or because their fell out or broke off (because their hair isn’t strong enough to hold the extensions properly), not realizing that the styles in question are not for them and never have nor will be (specifically due to their race and subsequently their hair texture) which is why they experience such extreme consequences.
My opinionis that when white girls wear box braids (and “locs” and twists, afros, et al), they do it to be “different” not realizing that in their quest for uniqueness, they are contributing to generations of oppression and dehumanization geared towards Women of Color.
By this I mean that Women of Color have been ridiculed, physically harassed and assaulted and even severely punished (jail or death) for simply wearing hairstyles that are traditional to our cultures. Women of Color, and more specifically Black Women of Color have had laws passed against our hair and hairstyles, laws that are still in effect today. Laws that are still being made today. (btw I’m not going to link any documentation of this because if you truly are interested you’ll figure out the next steps to enlightenment. )
So when a white girl, in her entitled and childish bigotry, attempts to force herself into and co-opt a movement and tradition that she has no place in, when she attempts to sloppily recreate the glory that we Women of Color naturally possess and she is then exalted as an originator of creative fashion while the very same Black Woman of Color is degraded as being ghetto or tacky for the very same hairstyle (which, to reiterate, she created), that white girl is benefiting from and adding to a society rife with misogynoir, racism, white privilege and, at the end of the very long rope, the effects of European colonialism.
My opinion is that when the general consensus from Women of Color is that white girls should refrain from bastardizing our style, traditions and culture, and that white girls should instead focus on their own unique beauty and try to contribute some slither of creativity to the fashion sphere by creating something unique to them and their only-important-when-refuting-their-whiteness cultures and traditions, white girls should listen and choose a different hairstyle that isn’t offensive, blatant appropriation and oppressive.
And lastly my opinion when white girls wear box braids (or “locs”, afros or twists),
“This is how thoroughly we women have been sexualized, that we cannot make the kind of noises that come with physical exertion without it being associated with sex. In fact, everything about our bodies has been sexualized in one way or another. If we groan during sport or we breast-feed in public, we are criticized for making people think about sex. If we talk openly about things like menstruation and poop and farts, then we are criticized for making people not want to think about sex.
Think about what it means to be ladylike and all of the adjectives that go along with it: elegant, cultured, classy, sophisticated. To be successful at being feminine means being successful at being private, keeping your body’s natural functions behind closed doors and never letting anyone know they exist. It means to be constrained, that you do not let your legs spread wide in public transportation and you do not make noises that are harsh on the ears. It means presenting a polished, shiny surface to the world at all times, one that allows others to project whatever they wish onto you while never showing too much of your true self.”—Women’s tennis and the gender politics of grunting (via chubby-bunnies)
I just want all of you to know that if you ever need someone to talk to or have something on your mind please do not hesitate to send me an ask or something I don’t want any of you to feel like you’re alone you’re all such amazing people, you deserve all the happiness in the world and I fucking love all of you
it’s so weird that harry potter took place in the 90’s
space jam was being filmed while voldemort was taking over the wizarding world
come on and slam and welcome to azkaban
It actually makes a lot of sense - JK Rowling was a single mother on benefits around the time when I was the child of a single mother on benefits.
In the late eighties and early nineties in the UK, the narratives of ‘the underclass’ and ‘the undeserving poor’ started to gain traction and become culturally dominant. In part this was because of the rising number of long-term unemployed people after the loss of industry, coupled with a rise in the number of one parent families and the recession of the early nineties and the accompanying trend towards social conservatism.
All of these gave way to a culturally dominant narrative about ‘scroungers’ (although that word has only come into wider use more recently) ‘costing the taxpayer money’, who are by definition lazy, feckless cheats who are ‘worthless’ by dint of the fact that they do not ‘contribute to society’ by paying [income] tax.
As a child in that situation, we could barely afford to eat or heat our home but I knew from a very young age to never admit to that - it was shameful. Sometimes, my mothers benefit would be stopped or be paid late (or our house would get broken into, or my mum would lose her wallet or any number of minor costs or inconveniences that would be complete calamities because we didn’t have any cushion to fallback on) and we would go through periods of intense poverty.
These periods usually coincided with visits to the DHSS (Department of Health and Social Security - which was what the Department of Work and Pensions was called before they changed the name to sound more middle-class) which would sometimes entail days on end spent in a grey-carpeted waiting room while my mother waited for an appointment with an assessor for a crisis loan or to find out why her claim had been inexplicably closed or why she hadn’t received her Giro (a kind of cheque that can only be cashed at a Post Office, which was how all benefit claimants were paid at the time).
The early nineties were a really dark time in Muggle Britain - you might have been revelling in Space Jam and Toy Story 1, but me and JK Rowlings’ kids were being made fun of because we couldn’t afford real school uniforms or being tutted at the school gate because our mums’ were ‘unwed mothers’.
It’s not surprising to see this darkness translate into the Potterverse - JK Rowling was struggling to make ends meet and experiencing the stigma that went with claiming benefits when she began writing it. It’s arguable that the reason food features so heavily in the first two books is because JK Rowling wrote them when she didn’t have enough to eat.
In fact, there are a lot of parallels to be drawn between Muggle Britain and Magical Britain, from the recession that has the Weasley’s struggling to afford floo powder, the oft-abounding insults about the size of their families (a key feature in class-hatred), the childrens’ second-hand clothes and their reluctance to talk about money.
There are implications in the first book that while the Weasley’s have enough to eat, but not enough to eat well or to cater to specific tastes and preferences, and their homemade Christmas presents (which the children are embarrassed by) further allude to class, money and the stigma of not having them.
The Dursley’s make references to Harry’s parents being ‘on the dole’ (i.e. receiving government benefits) and this is clearly intended pejoratively (even though it is ultimately untrue) which serves to highlight how unpleasant but average middle-class muggles view benefit claimants.
At the height of Voldemorts’ power in the books (The Order of The Phoenix), Diagon Alley is clearly in deep recession - Ollivanders Wand Shop, Florean Fortescue’s Ice Cream Parlour and Scribbulus Writing Instruments are all described as having closed down and several other shops are described as being boarded up. This is a direct allegory to the social conservatism of the wizarding and muggle worlds which causes middle and working class people to become worse off while profiting the historically rich (or ‘pureblood’).
Similarly, the way that the Ministry of Magic is described could be seen as a clear reference to government buildings which JK Rowling would have been forced to visit to access benefits before she began writing Harry Potter. Harry is summoned to a hearing with no notice, then the time and location are changed with no notice in an attempt to avoid having Harry or Dumbledore testify at the hearing. These are well-known tactics of the DHSS at the time (and something that my mother certainly experienced), done to avoid reopening claims for benefits that had been wrongly closed.
As magic is easily seen as an allegory for money - magic means prestige, social capital, access to an entire *literal* world, as well as transport, enjoyment, learning - the use of the the same room in the Ministry of Magic as the setting for muggle-born hearings in OoTP clearly correlates to the hearings and judgments and approvals for benefits (the receipt of which often made the difference between ones’ ability to continue to be a part of society) in Muggle Britain.
TL;DR - Voldemorts’ rise, and the accompanying social conservatism in the wizarding world - class hatred, allusions to racism, recession, a small but powerful government - actually tallies really well with what actually happened in Muggle Britain in the nineties.
“I don’t care if Mike Brown was going to college soon. This should not matter. We should not have to prove Mike Brown was worthy of living. We should not have to account for the ways in which he is suitably respectable. We should not have to prove that his body did not deserve to be riddled with bullets. His community should not have to silence their anger so they won’t be accused of rioting, so they won’t become targets too.”—"silence is not an option," roxane gay (via brookehatfield)
"White feminism" does not mean every white woman, everywhere, who happens to identify as feminist. It also doesn’t mean that every "white feminist" identifies as white. I see "white feminism" as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. "White feminism" is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn’t consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality.
White feminism is a set of beliefs that allows for the exclusion of issues that specifically affect women of colour. It is “one size-fits all” feminism, where middle class white women are the mould that others must fit. It is a method of practicing feminism, not an indictment of every individual white feminist, everywhere, always.
if you’re angry at someone for something ask yourself if a kangaroo was right in front of you would you rather get mad at the person or look at the kangaroo. if it’s the kangaroo then what you’re mad about isn’t important at all. wow i love kangaroos