Latest Tweets:

*76

peechingtonmariejust:

From “What The Modern World Owes Slavery (It’s More Than Back Wages)” on huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-grandin/slavery-reparations_b_4846078.html)

Trigger warning: racial slurs, murder, Medical torture, death, kidnapping, scientific experiments

(via masteradept)

*15

The Disturbing Sexist Ageism of American Horror Story

And I need to say this about black women. It is true that melanin helps protect the skin from damage and some signs of aging. But black women age like everyone else, and an unlined face does not equal skipping out on other physical changes that come with getting older. The idea that black women are to remain preternaturally young doesn’t really do us any favors. The notion that “black don’t crack” implies that “cracking” is not a natural and acceptable thing to do in one’s later years, and it gently shames any black woman who looks just as old as she is. (We can’t all be Angela Bassett, who, I’m pretty sure, really is sucking the blood of virgins.)

(Source: talesofthestarshipregeneration)

girljanitor:

shoddyshit:

afrohoney:

A mix of nature to create beautiful afrocentric street art

2real

:0 <3

(via masteradept)

black womens tears…

bad-dominicana:

is all i think when i see black women who SHOULD be crying, trying to hold it together.

i see black womens tears often.

they are the antithesis, the inverse image of white womens tears.

not audible, not visible, not a cry for sympathy and attention, not self-serving deflection.

but silent, hidden, full of sorrow, forever poker-faced, afraid to show weakness, in a world that eats it and us up for bite-sized snacks.

(via maxamillionracism)

*30

"

Some antiwar feminist academics cloak their support for the patriarchal-religious force in the “cultural relativist” argument which privileges the “indigeneity” of patriarchy. My question is: Why have feminists, especially those with a progressive, antiwar, anti-globalization agenda, in recent years repeatedly failed to uphold a multi-edged banner of resistance? Why have we failed us to see the multiplicity of contradictions in patriarchal capitalism? We should seek the answer, I would like to propose, in the following factors:

1) The theoretical turn in feminism in the last three decades has had a devastating impact on women’s struggle globally. Exaggerated emphases on “identity,” “voice,” “agency,” “location” and “experience” have reduced patriarchy to questions of culture and religion. This means that patriarchy as an institution of women’s subordination is separated from capitalist relations of exploitation, from imperialist domination, and from the rise of nationalism and fundamentalism. This myopic view of patriarchy, sometimes even endorsed the colonialist “liberation” agenda for women in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2) The political implications of this theoretical shift have been even more disturbing. Feminism as a potential strong opposition social force has been reduced to fragmented, disjointed and coopted tendencies. The outcome is the re-emergence of colonial and imperialist feminisms on the one hand, and nativist feminisms which perpetuate patriarchy under the banner of culture on the other.

3) The post-9/11 condition has added more complexity to this already messy situation. In the West we are faced with the rise of state suppression of individual rights and civil liberties under the name of “security” and “war on terror.” State-sponsored racial profiling is on the rise, and Islamophobia, anti-Arab, and anti-Muslim racism are growing. Most feminist responses are at best ambiguous toward this environment of fear and terror.

4) The right turn in the feminist movement coincides with three decades of cooptation and fragmentation of women’s movements through the instruments of the UN, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and a vast network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These capitalist institutions have supported, funded and promoted patriarchy by turning the struggle of women to de-politicized and liberal notions of “gender mainstreaming” and “women’s empowerment.”

In this imperialist feminist scheme, women were trained to lead NGOs, to participate in the political structure of conservative and pro-Western states, to engage in alienating, pacifying training programs for the capitalist “democracy” and join the army of workers to build “civil society.” In this version of women’s struggle, capitalist relations of power and the institutions of state and patriarchy are left untouched.

"

Shahrzad Mojab, "Women’s NGOs Under Conditions of Occupation and War" (via so-treu)

(via talesofthestarshipregeneration)

*24

Dear Knight in Tarnished Armor:

mslorelei:

Please do not attempt to slay the dragon until you have checked to see whether the princess actually wants the dragon slain. You may not realize that the dragon is

  1. Her cat dressed up for Halloween
  2. Her husband, wife, or other life partner
  3. Her best friend and roommate, the world’s only consulting detective
  4. Her partner in the Interspecies Olympics
  5. A potential partner in a billion-dollar business deal
  6. The only person who knows where to find the essential ingredient in the ultimate cancer cure
  7. An emissary from another world

Your concern for the risks she is taken is noted. Your good intentions are assumed. Nevertheless, hold your Goddamned fire until it is needed.

(via cumaeansibyl)

ikaythegod:

A Living Death - People Spending The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison For Non-violent Crimes

Ever wonder what could land you in prison for the rest of your life? For 3,278 people, it was a nonviolent offense like shoplifting a few cameras from Wal-Mart, stealing a $159 jacket, or serving as a middleman in the sale of $10 of marijuana.

People as young as 18 will spend the rest of their lives behind bars for crimes where no one was injured. Mothers and fathers will be separated from their kids forever. People convicted of their first offense will be permanently denied a second chance. Many young Black and low-income men and women will be locked up until they die. And taxpayers will spend billions to keep them behind bars.

As the new ACLU report “A Living Death: Life Without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses” reveals, the failed, and outdated approach of applying extreme sentences to minor property and drug crimes has reached absurd, tragic and costly heights.

These people’s problems — poverty, mental illness, drug dependency — were not solved by sending them to prison until they die. And most of the nonviolent crimes for which these prisoners are serving life without parole would be more appropriately addressed outside the criminal justice system altogether, by providing drug treatment and mental health resources.

(via reverseracism)

cognitivedissonance:

jonnubroth:

nbcnews:

School stabbing spree: 20 hurt in Pittsburgh-area bloodbath
(Photo: NBC News)
As many as 20 students were hurt, some with life-threatening wounds, when a classmate went on a stabbing rampage through the classrooms and halls of a high school outside Pittsburgh on Wednesday morning, authorities said.
Continue reading

proof if you take away guns, people will still find ways to hurt each other

Yes, but let’s consider that for a moment: Thus far, there have been no deaths. All the victims are expected to live. In the Newtown, Conn. shooting, Adam Lanza killed twenty-six people in less than five minutes. Not maimed — killed.
A gun is going to make a person more lethal, in less time, from further away. With other methods, like a knife, the attacker must get close to their intended targets (versus spraying bullets indiscriminately), and this gives opportunity for others to run and/or subdue the assailant.
When the principal at Newtown tried to stop Lanza, she was murdered. The vice principal in this case was able to tackle the suspect and he was cuffed by the school resource officer. Yes, people will still find ways to hurt each other. There’s no reason to make it easier for them to do so.
Please don’t claim this attack “proves” gun control proponents wrong, or firearms advocates right. I will admit, my first thought was, “Thank God he didn’t have a gun” — however, when are we going to have a discussion about what leads a high school sophomore to this kind of attack as a solution? Or anyone, for that matter? Perhaps he had access to guns and maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
The undeniable truth here is that for whatever reason, he chose knives, and that choice, in this instance, may have made it more difficult for him to rack up the kind of body count we have seen as a nation in similar mass attacks when a gun is used.

cognitivedissonance:

jonnubroth:

nbcnews:

School stabbing spree: 20 hurt in Pittsburgh-area bloodbath

(Photo: NBC News)

As many as 20 students were hurt, some with life-threatening wounds, when a classmate went on a stabbing rampage through the classrooms and halls of a high school outside Pittsburgh on Wednesday morning, authorities said.

Continue reading

proof if you take away guns, people will still find ways to hurt each other

Yes, but let’s consider that for a moment: Thus far, there have been no deaths. All the victims are expected to live. In the Newtown, Conn. shooting, Adam Lanza killed twenty-six people in less than five minutes. Not maimed — killed.

A gun is going to make a person more lethal, in less time, from further away. With other methods, like a knife, the attacker must get close to their intended targets (versus spraying bullets indiscriminately), and this gives opportunity for others to run and/or subdue the assailant.

When the principal at Newtown tried to stop Lanza, she was murdered. The vice principal in this case was able to tackle the suspect and he was cuffed by the school resource officer. Yes, people will still find ways to hurt each other. There’s no reason to make it easier for them to do so.

Please don’t claim this attack “proves” gun control proponents wrong, or firearms advocates right. I will admit, my first thought was, “Thank God he didn’t have a gun” — however, when are we going to have a discussion about what leads a high school sophomore to this kind of attack as a solution? Or anyone, for that matter? Perhaps he had access to guns and maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.

The undeniable truth here is that for whatever reason, he chose knives, and that choice, in this instance, may have made it more difficult for him to rack up the kind of body count we have seen as a nation in similar mass attacks when a gun is used.

(Source: NBCNews.com, via talesofthestarshipregeneration)

petitsirena:

WHITE FEMINISM

(via angrylatinxsunited)