This blog is focused on racism and pop culture from a Native American perspective. Although it’s not exactly a blog entry, check out the author’s brilliant essay/collection of quotes arguing that racism is systematic, not abberant.
Race, racism, and pop culture. This has quickly become a must-read blog for me.
Fetch Me My Axe: Anger, Feminism, “The Secretaries”
This post, much of which consists of quotes from the play “The Secretaries,” is the most interesting post I’ve read all week. Check it out, please.
I firmly believe that Jill’s tongue-in-cheek ownership of the phrase “fun feminist” — a term which should be banished to the high hills along with Hirshman’s “lumpenproletariat woman” — was received so bitterly because of people’s perception of her class status and embrace of femininity. Welcome to the feminist blogosphere, where no one is allowed to process out loud without having taken a firm stand.
The misleading idea that ability and disability make up a binary situation leads to questions of whether or not an individual is truly impaired or disabled. At what point is one legitimately disabled? How can you tell who’s a fake? What if your condition is intermittent or varies daily? How much of a developmentally-impaired individual’s behavior is abnormal and how much is just not accepted by a narrow-minded public? Are you still disabled if your bipolarism is controlled by medication? If your prosthetic limb works so well no one would know that it’s underneath your pant leg, do you qualify or not?
The Countess reports another election victory: An MRA-sponsored “mandatory shared parenting” ballot measure lost. Be sure to read The Countess’ op-ed explaining why these laws are bad for children and bad for society.
Kenji Yoshino Audio Lecture: “Covering” and Authenticity As A Civil Rights Issue
Professor Yoshino argues that the cutting-edge expression of bigotry is the pressure on minorities to “cover” whatever identifies them as not part of the majority culture. Really interesting stuff. Curtsy: Blackfeminism.org.
Conservatives have long critiqued academia for the ways professors use their position to indoctrinate students with left-wing ideology, but the left has largely ignored the political impact of the way people learn economics, though its influence is likely far more profound. […] “A little economics can be a dangerous thing,” a friend working on her Ph.D in public policy at the U. of C. told me. “An intro econ course is necessarily going to be superficial. You deal with highly stylized models that are robbed of context, that take place in a world unmediated by norms and institutions. Much of the most interesting work in economics right now calls into question the Econ 101 assumptions of rationality, individualism, maximizing behavior, etc. But, of course, if you don’t go any further than Econ 101, you won’t know that the textbook models are not the way the world really works, and that there are tons of empirical studies out there that demonstrate this.”
(Curtsy: Ezra Klein).
A Womb Of Her Own: Blackbeard Brand Rugged Tampons
I’d buy ‘em for the box alone.
…There is a difference between speaking out as an ally and speaking “with authority” on a subject. White women will never ever know what it is like to be a woman of color. Period. But white women can and absolutly DO speak out as allies to women of color. Just peek over at some of the links on my link page, and you’ll find a whole bunch of white women speaking on all sorts of issues that are relevent and very important to women of color. But the thing is, they are not trying to speak as a woman of color or “for” women of color, they are calling white people on their shit.
The New Republic: Why Black Republicans Keep Losing
According to this article, the truth is that the Democrats do deliver policies that benefit Black voters, and Black voters respond to this. Just putting a Black Republican on the ticket doesn’t fool Black voters, in other words.
The Republic of T: It’s Not Nice To Fool Black Voters
More links and discussion about why the GOP keeps on losing the Black vote.
Why are feminists so uncomfortable with talking abut non-vanilla sex practices? When we do talk about such sex practices, why do we so quickly devolve into fights about what’s acceptable and what’s not? But if we’re interested in power structures and how power dynamics work, why are we not more open to folks who think a lot about how power dynamics work?
A Womb Of Her Own: Telling Boys To Pee Sitting Down Is “Meddling With God’s Work”
The hysteria over fragile masculinity subtext in this story from Norway is so blatant, I’m not even sure it can reasonably be referred to as “subtext.” (Supertext? Ultratext? Textytext?)
Britney has been legally married twice — once for 55 hours and once for just over two years — and apparently without much more forethought than one might give to choosing choosing a flavor of bubble gun. I have been all-but-legally married for over 6 years, which required a lot of forethought about how to protect our relationship.
Yet, in both of Spears’ marriages she’s enjoyed benefits and protections that my husband and I are do not, even though the depth of our commitment to one another and our family is no less than Spears’ commitment to hers. And though her first husband didn’t sign a pre-nup, while her second husband probably did, they both had rights and protections in the midst of divorce that same-sex couples do not, including custody and visitation rights. And it goes without saying that their children get all the benefits and protections of having parents who can legally marry. Ours do not.
Someone, please, tell me — explain it to me like I’m four years old (or like I’m Britney Spears) — where is the justice in all of the above?
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]