PRESS CTRL OR COMMAND+ FOR BIGGER TEXT, CTRL OR COMMAND- FOR SMALLER TEXT
SKIP TO NAVIGATION & SEARCH | SKIP TO CONTENT

{ LINK: A far better discussion on issues within the Third World ideology than I started with my history!fail }

genderbitch:

Read it and check out the links too, really good stuff.

(Source: hexgoddess)

{ Smilies are totally words }

eateroftrees:

Compare:
“Aliens set my house on fire :P”: And this is amusing.

“Aliens set my house on fire :(“: And now I’m depressed.

“Aliens set my house on fire ._.”: Why do they always do that?

“Aliens set my house on fire >.>” Yes really, aliens.

“Aliens set my house on fire ^_^” And this is like a dream come true!

D: is also a word but it doesn’t work like other smilies:

“Aliens set my house on fire” “D:”

…this is coming kind of from my understanding of things, others may view/use these particles slightly differently :P  And I may not be 100% right about the meanings here.  I think I may switch >.> and ._. around a lot.

:P :( and ^_^ I am pretty much certain of though, at least for my usage.

:D

(Source: thenameoftheworms)

polypeopleofcolor:

Genderbitch Lite: Now With More Rambling!: Trans vs. Trans*

jemimaaslana:

sugaredvenom:

youknowyouretrans:

Trans can be deemed to be less inclusive than Trans*.

Trans* is generally taken to mean:

Transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, non-binary, genderfluid, genderfuck, intersex, third gender, transvestite, cross-dresser, bi-gender, trans…

(via so-treu)

radicallyhottoff:

note-a-bear:

radicallyhottoff:

ekswitaj:

Lady Gaga Brings Cholas Back To Pop Culture – Like It Or Not

leavemeunderwater:

ekswitaj:

radicallyhottoff:

thegreatpumpkin:

NO. DO NOT WANT.

MOTHAFUCKING WAT??????

Looks like she forgot that you don’t get to reclaim terms *for* people. The lines under discussion are also incredibly awkward; parallelism had to be ignored and a word chopped up for them to rhyme and have the right meter, so it would seem that she really, really wanted to use the words.

Oh my goodness… I don’t even know where to start.

To address the title of the song you’re not born a chola, if the cards are dealt this way for you then you become one. Chola/Cholo, at least in America (and even Mexico I think), is a criminal and gangster, a degenerate. They have a certain get-up, that’s for sure. They’re easy to spot. This is not a term I’d be proud to be called and it can’t be used to identify Latinos in a pathetic line in a dumb stanza of stupid song listing, I suppose, races of all types.

Oh and “Chola” in Bolivia (and maybe other countries along the Andes) is a name for indigenous women who dress in a very particular way. Think she’ll use that in her video?

Oh I don’t care, I don’t have cable.

Reblogging for commentary. (I didn’t know the Bolivian meaning.)

Well, I don’t have any problem being called chola—and have called myself chola for a long time. I am not from Cali (which is where the term is mostly used, to my understanding), I’m from Michigan—but I refuse the (often classist and sexist) understanding of gang girls who are more often than not, negotiating violence with limited tools and resources rather than deliberately courting a reputation.

Not saying that every Chicana/Latina is proud or should be proud to call herself or be identified as Chola—rather instead saying Cholas almost exclusively are the brunt of fucked up shit (you never see anybody making fun of or pretending to be cholos) and what I see as tools of survival being mocked—I think that it’s almost a type of gendered violence to make fun of those tools of survival—that whole tuff attitude that Sandra Bullock was imitating and everybody was laughing at? Why would girls/women take on that tuff attitude? Unless they needed it? So you’re taking something that a girl *needs* to survive and mocking it on national television?Making a girl fighting for her survival into a fool?

It’s sorta the same thing as all the Michelle Obama sketches on mad Tv and SNL  always have sweet sweet michelle finally getting pissed off and going gangsta—her hair getting all big and her head and finger wagging—it’s classist bullshit, implying black women can’t ever be “classy” (loaded term, y’all)—but at its core, it’s making fun of a tool of survival for black women (standing up for themselves cuz nobody fucking else is) and taking away their humanity and power.

reblogging for commentary.

Also, thought I’d add a few articles that came up when I was looking for what radicallyhottoff was talking about before.

Maybe It’s Just Me…

Colorlines

My Latino Voice <—-this article has an interesting linguistic pullout quote. Granted, the research is from wikipedia, but still, I find it an interesting conversation point:


“The term’s use is first recorded in a Peruvian book published in 1609 and 1616, the Comentarios Reales de los Incas by Inca Garcilaso de la Vega. He writes (in Spanish) “The child of a Black male and an Indian female, or of an Indian male and Black female, they call mulato and mulata. The children of these they call cholo. Cholo is a word from the Windward Islands; it means dog, not of the purebred variety, but of very disreputable origin; and the Spaniards use it for insult and vituperation”.
[1]

In Colonial Mexico, the terms cholo and coyote co-existed, indicating mixed Mestizo and Amerindian ancestry. Under the casta system of colonial Latin America, cholo originally applied to the children resulting from the union of a Mestizo and an Amerindian; that is, someone of three quarters Amerindian and one quarter Spanish ancestry. Other terms (mestizo, castizo, etc.) were used to denote other ratios of smaller or greater Spanish-to-Amerindian ancestry.

The word “xolotl” (pronounced “cholotl”) is an Aztec word which means dog. It is from this meaning that the word “cholo” developed its negative connotation, taking on a similar meaning to “mutt” as applied to humans.

Student Operated Press

interesting shit—I didn’t know that about the colonial beginnings of the word…

(via bigbadcolored-deactivated201104)

{ On avoiding oppressive language }

(*warning*, as there are examples)

trastorn:

Don’t view it as a chore. See it as an opportunity to become more innovative and precise in your command of the English language. If you want to insult someone, it’s really easy to just say ‘piss off, you retarded bitch.’ But aside from being ableist and sexist, it’s not particularly creative either. Now if you said ‘you are a massive stain on humanity and I absolutely cannot be bothered to deal with your fuckery any longer,’ you’ve been much more cutting without relying on bigoted and oppressive language.

(Source: kadalkavithaigal, via janedoe225)

{ Why cultural context is important and time period matters. }

radicallyhottoff:

tranzient:

custerdiedforyoursins:

theoceanandthesky:

ctchphrse:

(Before you jump on the GaGa bandwagon, give this a read and consider your own actions. I know what the picture could imply, but I also know it could very well imply the exact opposite.)

The term hooligan, now meaning, “a tough or aggressive violent youth” used to be a derogatory term to refer to a filthy Irish drunk.

The term vandal, now meaning, “one who defaces or destroys public or private property,” used to be a derogatory term for classless, Godless Germans.

The term barbarian, now meaning “a fierce, brutal, or cruel person,” used to be a derogatory term to refer to a vile foreigner.

The term bugger, now meaning “a disreputable person,” used to be a derogatory term for a Bulgarian sodomite.

The term gyp, now meaning “a fraud,” used to be an ethnic slur for Godless gypsies.

Just because Blackface used to be used in a racist and demeaning way, does not mean GaGa is using it that way. But you are perfectly entitled to react how you think is appropriate. I’m just providing an alternate viewpoint that you should at least take in to consideration.

isn’t this very similar to “it’s okay to call people lame because even though it used to mean someone with a diability it doesn’t mean that now?”

also since when has blackface ever not been racist?

How could blackface imply the opposite of what blackface implies? Oh and “gyp” is still very much fucking racist. I’m not too sure about the other examples though.

Yeah, no. It’s still racist and all this “well, look at it this way,” can be molded into a pile of shit for all I care.

except gaga did not use a *word*—she used a physical action. so the proper “put this in context” is “what is going on in this picture”—NOT—words change and have different meanings at different times. the equivalent would be—who has “reclaimed” or otherwise “contextualized” blackface in such a way as to complexify it or destigmatize it. And that would be next to nobody who is not black. I can’t think of one example of anybody who is not black who has in anyway reworked it. This is one of those things where white people (and non-black people) have no business messing in for *any* reason. (and this is giving lady gaga a huuuuuuuuuuuge benefit of the doubt. i don’t think she’s trying to contextualize or destigmatize shit.)

reblogging for commentary.

and i fucking love how people saying that blackface is racist is being framed as “jumping on the bandwagon” — bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.  Gaga’s been horrible in several ways (any ONE of which would’ve been a deal-breaker imo) and continues to be horrible.

(Source: cracked.com, via bigbadcolored-deactivated201104)

{ Here’s why I hate ____phobia being used for oppressive forces: }

eateroftrees:

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotophobia

Specifically, the header explains it pretty well:

  • to describe a specific phobia related to sex, or
  • as a term in psychological studies describing one’s degree of (general) aversion to sex, or
  • as a political term, used for example by feminists and in literary analysis.

It’s the first and the last really that I’m concerned about.  See… nearly all the feminists I’ve seen discussing sex-negativity and how we need to, you know, be more positive about sex… COMPLETELY CONFLATE THESE THINGS. (And let’s be clear: I am sure there are people who don’t.  I’ve just encountered them slightly less)

Hell, it’s not like internalize shame from a culture of sex-negativity could pretty easily fuck you up and make pushing your boundaries a completely horrifying experience. And of course, there are actual phobias.  I literally start panicking if I get anywhere near someone else’s vagina (no experience with penises yet) or get completely naked.

And yes, I have gone through bouts of self loathing because of internalized ableism and shit like this.  Don’t fucking conflate being comfortable with sex with being sex positive.  I am all for people doing whatever they are comfortable with.  And if that’s “hardly anything” THAT IS GOOD TOO.

(And let’s be clear here: I’m not asexual, I really would like to have lots of sex and enjoy it. I just have a really hard time being remotely comfortable with it. …also I’m trans so that adds another layer to it. And, it turns out, ludicrously ticklish to the point I can hardly stand being touched.)

Just… STOP STICKING ME IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROY SEXUALITY.

(Source: thenameoftheworms)

{ How do people think that “privilege” has anything to do with an argument? }

genderbitch:

amaevis:

accordingtosami:

missdaisyvo:

bulletinmypocket:

I really would like to know what that has to do with anyone’s opinion.

Exactly this.

Because it’s really fucked up for someone who is experiencing privilege to tell someone who does not experience that privilege what to do or how to live their life? Rich people telling poor people what to do, straight people telling gay people what to do, white people telling black people what to do, etc etc etc. Who am I as a white woman to tell a black woman to “stop acting so ghetto”? Or a straight person telling a gay person to “tone it down?” 

Take for example, extreme poverty. I have no place to go fly to a third world country and lecture an 11 year old kid who is raising his 9 year old brother by himself because they’re both orphans and living on the street that they shouldn’t steal food from the farmers market because stealing is bad and if they just work hard then they can have whatever they want because I have no fucking clue what their day-to-day lives are like. 

So yes, when person A is never, ever going to be in the position that person B is in, then person A needs to keep their mouth shut when it comes to person B’s actions.

^^^COMMENTARY^^^

It’s entirely possible for a person with privilege to have a correct opinion. (It’s far more likely that it’s incorrect because it’s not rooted in personal experience, but regardless…) But realize that when a person with privilege on a specific axis expresses that opinion, regardless of what it is, society gives it more weight. That’s part of privilege too. So good allies need to support from the sidelines and not try to take over movements to challenge oppression.

The commentary^^^

^ yes.

(Source: haereticum, via hexgoddess)

{ grammar policing and derailing }

remnantof:

Grammar policing is one of the nastiest and most privileged forms of derailing I’ve come into contact with.  When you nitpick a person’s argument because of formatting, grammar, or spelling errors, rather than examining the actual intent and objective worth of what they are saying, you’re not just derailing, you are silencing people and closing off the debate to large groups of people.

When you police grammar and spelling in discussions, what you are saying is:

  • discussion is only a space for the academically minded
  • for the formally educated, perfect English speaking, college-level minority
  • self-expression must adhere to racist/ablist/classist/neurotypical standards to be of worth in a discussion, to matter to you, because you uphold those standards and therefore your opinions and expression matters above all others
  • I don’t want to engage you or your point, or your experience, because I don’t like the way you’ve expressed it, it is not the way I express things

All of these are bullshit, all of these things are ways to dismiss arguments, stifle expression, and erase entire groups of people from the discussion.  When you ask people to only engage you if they are educated enough, neurotypical enough, versed in your language of choice, and detached enough to put up with all of your bullshit and play nice with people who are likely actively or passively oppressing them?  You are cutting off entire perspectives from your debate, and you are being a fucking asshole.  If you read someone’s post and dismiss what they are trying to express because you think they were rude (tone argument), or illogical (you’re too emotionally invested), or didn’t spell something correctly (grammar policing), you are seriously just being a privileged dick and either pushing people out of your space, or invading their space to try to hold them up to your bullshit standard, and you need to gtfo.

(via sdfwe4332-deactivated20120124)