and he has a show tonight that he wants me to go to/chill/stay @ his hotel with him after but like I’m just so lazy omfg i don’t want to do anything but like ugh dnt wanna b a bad friend. fuckkkkkkkkkkk
i wish more ppl thought like u tbh.
So, I agreed with you and even respected you until the end. Now, I’m going to have to disagree and I will attempt to do it in a respectful manner, as you weren’t going out of your way to be oppressive/defensive.
First, this wasn’t meant as an attack on you or on anyone who uses guns. It was an attack on patriarchy/sexism in general. Correlations are not causations. Therefore, gun owners (myself included) aren’t all horrible disgusting misanthropes. Cool, glad we’re on the same page here.
Now, the reason this has gotten so much attention isn’t just because this is a female target. It’s because it’s a female target labeled as an “ex-girlfriend” target. That is to say, you are supposed to be simulating domestic violence, a true threat to women in the United States. Additionally, the NRA and gun market is comprised largely of men. Women (the ones who took up the issue with the oversexualized ex girlfriend target) are inserting themselves in this issue as we have become affected by it. Targets looking like us have been brought into the gun world to be marketed to male marksmen. This is going to seem like a stretch to you, I’m sure, but please just try to follow me/understand (because I promise I’m not against you). But think of it like in the movie Taken. Liam Nissen doesn’t get involved with the Albanian crime circle until they steal his daughter, until they get him involved. So, now that our likeness is being stolen and marketed to men (and, like in the movie, at our expense for their gain), we are aware of the issue and we are trying to correct it. Many of us a-like targets either (myself included), but we weren’t aware any of them existed until now. This is because those who are uncomfortable with human targets (like yourself) chose not to buy them, rather than “make a big deal out of it” as we’ve been socialized to think that’s normal. However, because women experience violence at the hands of men on a daily basis, this affects us more than a male target affects you, especially because we aren’t really a large presence in shooting. Our likeness has been appropriated. That’s why it’s only just become an issue.
So, in terms of rape culture, you already mentioned there are male targets as well. However, are they created to “look slutty”? Ie are their bras and boobs exposed? Are they wearing makeup? (I can’t think of any situation in which you would be shooting a woman in a low cut shirt in self defense? I don’t dress up to kill people?) There is a link in American society between sex and violence. And, because this is supposed to represent an ex-girlfriend, it definitely perpetuates rape culture as it’s encouraging you to act aggressively and violently towards someone you were once intimate with/had sex with.
I hope that cleared things up and I hope, even if you disagree, you will continue to do so respectfully and will at least hear me out. :)
Alright, you’re way more reasonable than i expected you to be, based on my experience with most “patriarchy smashers.” So I think we can continue this civilly.
There are still a few problems with what you’re saying in my opinion.
In your first paragraph you conflate “defensive” and “oppressive.” Maybe you just misspoke here, but it could also be interpreted as a sneaky way to imply anyone disagreeing (being “defensive”) is being “oppressive.” I don’t believe this is true and I suppose you got lucky that it’s me responding to it and not somebody more sensetive and reactive to that kind of thing. I’m gonna assume it just slipped out. Defending oneself in debate is not oppression.
I’m glad you clarified it wasnt an ad-hominem attack. Imagine if, on tumblr, one day, nobody actually needed to make that clear. It’s sad huh. But yeah, we’re on the same page with that. Debate is debate. You and I are people.
Ok. What can I say. Firstly, it is (was, seems they changed it, realising it was pretty tasteless) a “zombie” ex girlfriend target. That’s something we need to keep in sight. It’s fantastical, the target’s mouth is covered in blood as if they’ve been attacking people, her eyes and skin tone are “zombified” like all the other targets. So while i agree that firing on targets with simulated human physique is creepy, i think it’s clutching at straws to call it a domestic violence simulator. Where do the obvious “zombie” components of the design fit into the domestic violence simulation?
You say, “domestic violence, a true threat to women in the United States.” - This, in my opinion, doesn’t add any weight to your argument. Firstly because i don’t see any reason to label this setup as a domestic violence simulator, and secondly, because husbands are actually more likely to be killed by their wives than the other way around. Males are also more likely to be victims of every violent crime (except rape) and more likely to be shot at on a global scale considering they are the predominant sex in militaries. So being shot either by a spouse, or by anyone what-so-ever, is statistically, a greater threat to men than to women. So if what you’ve said supports your argument, then what i’ve said supports mine.
Personally, the only thing i think these targets are guilty of is poor taste and lack of tact or shame. I don’t think it skews society in favour of wanting to shoot men, and i dont think it skews society in favour of wanting to shoot women either. It just services a market of tasteless hillbillys who, if i were giving out gun licenses, probably wouldn’t get one.
You can’t just “slip in” the assertion that this product is “harmful” to women. You should probably back it up with logic or evidence. The problem is every claim about this being dangerous and harmful for women is one i can make an equal or more potent counter to but for the male side. Are you beginning to get a hint that it’s a human issue and not a women’s one? That maybe violence is just as harmful to both sexes?
You mention that most women didn’t notice this issue before their image was “appropriated” for use as a recreational target. Okay, let’s say i accept that… Are you saying the only reason nobody bat an eyelid at the vast majority of man shaped targets that were out first, is because they didn’t know about them? That’s a pretty ballsy claim to make, considering the depiction of violence towards men in the media vs towards women. Don’t worry, i’m not gonna go all fanatic MRA on you. I actually am more disgusted by violence towards women than towards men myself. I’m not afraid to admit that - it’s sexist but it’s also what my genetics demand of me. It’s an evolved survival mechanic. The key is admitting the bias rather than denying it and crying oppression.
As for her “slutty” appearance, man that’s a really difficult one. I can only hypothesize about their intentions with that part of the design. I agree it’s completely tasteless and a stupid idea. About as stupid of an idea as any of the other targets they’ve put out though, except maybe for the fact that it was so obviously going to catch way more media attention than the other ones (because generally nobody gets upset about this kind of thing unless women are involved)
It’s maybe worth mentioning that a lot of the male targets are completely topless. They’ve put the woman in clothes.
I guess a valid question to ask would be, if the woman was dressed as a dignified businesswoman, would it be less offensive or harmful? i don’t think so. Feminists would interpret it as hatred for females increasing power and influence in the modern world. What if she was dressed like a regular person on the street? I guess it’d be a better simulation of the average woman and not just a “toxic” one huh. What i’m saying is, to reference her clothing doesn’t really seem to have a point, because i think there would be just as much of a problem no matter what she was wearing. How does “slutty” clothing increase the supposed harm, if there is any in the first place?
I’m enjoying this discourse, which is very rare for a topic like this. I hope that we can find our point of divergence on the issue rather than the usual pattern; just yell at eachother about patriarchy and have a dick-sizing competition over who’s oppressed and who’s privileged. Thanks.
It’s been so long! But, hopefully we can pick this back up where we left it. :)
As for your first point, I didn’t misspeak and I actually did mean, to a certain extent, what you’re hoping I didn’t. But, hopefully the way I am about to explain it makes sense. So, because institutionalized oppressions, such as racism and sexism, occur on a large scale, they affect every aspect of your life. As a result, we have what are microaggressions: oppressive langue or acts/behaviors that are not overtly oppressive but, when examined closely, feed into and are driven by institutionalized oppression and have serious negative consequences. An example in the case of racism would be calling something ghetto. Because, historically, the ghetto is where we confined poc - keeping them in poverty, filth, and poor health, using the word ghetto to mean lesser than/uneducated/unworthy/etc. is highly oppressive, because you are penalizing a group of people for something imposed upon them/erasing their struggles/making invisible the government’s role in this. So, if a poc tells you you’re being racist, being defensive is being oppressive. Because, just because you don’t understand how what you said was racist/weren’t trying to be racist, doesn’t make what you did any less racist. Therefore, defending your “right” to use the word ghetto because “you’re not racist” is literally you defending racism (oppression). Additionally, dismissing the history/struggle or saying you can call white people ghetto too literally just works to make invisible daily racism that is still omnipresent, spilling into every aspect of daily life. What I was saying is that you’re engaging in the discourse with me, instead of being defensive. As a result, anything you say that is a microaggression/oppressive, you clearly do not mean to be oppressive, as you’re not being defensive AND when I responded to you this time, you didn’t react negatively to me saying it wasn’t a direct attack on you and we both cooled down a little. So, it seems like I sort of meant what you were hoping I didn’t, but to a lesser extent/different degree, and hopefully we can agree on that.
I agree it is definitely sad when you have to differentiate an attack from a debate and an individual from an ideology. It sounds like you’ve had some pretty shitty experience with that on tumblr, and I’m really sorry. I’ve been fortunate enough to have more positive exchanges than negative, and hopefully this is a positive exchange for you as well. :)
Okay, so this point about the ex-girlfriend target being a zombie relates to intersectionality. (I feel very silly talking about intersections with a zombie identity, but this should be fun.) The first thing I want to point out is her skin tone isn’t actually zombified; I know that seems like a minor argument, but it definitely makes a huge difference. But the thing about is intersectionality is that, even though there are more complexities and multiple identities, none take away from the other. For example, a Black lesbian is just as much Black as she is a woman as she is a lesbian; none of these identities deflate/make lesser the other. So, while this target is supposed to be marketed as a zombie (which, let’s be real, she really does look more like a beat up slut on drugs than she does a zombie), it is still a female target. Now, back to actual intersections, just because women, on the whole, or Black women, generally speaking, don’t struggle with homophobia does not take away from the fact that lesbians do. So, while a Black lesbian is both Black and a woman, homophobia still harms her. Now, I’d like to examine the choice of zombie in the first place. A zombie is the “living dead.” The targets eyes are blurred, which is the only “dead” thing about her. This allows the shooter to see her as a dead/”not there” girlfriend, not a zombie. Additionally, date rape involving alcohol is a HUGE problem for women in the United States. Having sex with a passed out woman is like having sex with a dead woman. It makes me nervous that an “ex-girlfriend,” someone you were once intimate with and also a woman, is further being portrayed as dead/something to conquer. (This is an example of a microaggression. The argument that there are men zombies too and we aren’t seeing men as dead/something to conquer cannot work here as men are not frequently raped while unconscious. HOWEVER, if it ever turned out that this was the case for men, an equivalent ex-boyfriend zombie would have the same implications/be as problematic. I hope I explained that well enough.) So, even though this ex girlfriend is a zombie, she’s still an ex girlfriend susceptible to domestic violence.
See, this is a point where we disagree again, and it is also based on a microaggression. (This would be another point where if you got defensive and were like “omg you’re so fucking stupid and wrong feminists complain about everything and make a huge deal out of nothing and reach with everything and make no big deal about men dummies and a dead girlfriend what a fucking joke of a reach feminism is such a fucking joke i was trying to help you bitch, etc.” it would be oppressive. However, if you simply said you saw what I was saying and disagreed, it would still feed into rape culture/be oppressive but in a different way - more institutionalized than individual. Do you see what I meant now?) Because the figure is a woman, I believe the fact that domestic violence is a huge threat to women is relevant. I think the fact that domestic violence is a huge threat to women is relevant to all women at all times. Because we are constantly faced with the fear that our significant other will act violently towards us due to the socialization of genders, normalization of rape culture, and dismissal of women’s issues, this fact is always relevant. Microaggressions further add to rape culture, socialization of the genders, and dismissal of women’s issues which communicates the approval of violence against women. This dummy makes it okay for men to laugh at violence against women, sending the message that violence against women is acceptable, especially in certain situations (ie: a bitch ex who deserves it). I’m not sure where you’re getting your facts/stats, but I’m going to assume they’re accurate. Just because more women kill their husbands (and in far less violent ways) does not mean anything about domestic violence/abuse on a whole, nor does it change the fact that women are still more likely to be abused by their male partners than the other way around. (When you look at partner murders, you’re looking at a smaller pool to begin with and you’re not accounting for all the other ongoing, long term violences that occur within relationships. Additionally, spousal murders committed by women are usually about jealousy and money, not violence. But, on the other end, 4 women are beaten to death by their intimate male partners every day in the United States. Beaten. Not shot. Beaten. Not a single moment of rage/violence. Beaten. A long, drawn out, intimate mode of violence.) Additionally, it doesn’t change the fact that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States. I mean, come on, it’s the leading cause of birth defects as well (according to the March of Dimes). And while, yes, males are statistically higher victims of every other violent crime except rape than are women, that is also due to sexism - the fact that men must be “masculine” and “tough,” also because women are encouraged to stay away from guns, violence, aggressive behaviors, contact sports, etc. This is all dominated by men. So, when a company dominated by men creates an object targeted to male consumers depicting a female, it is far more damaging than a male dominated company marketing to men a male bodied figure. Because men dictate what is male and what is female and dictate who is allowed access to certain activities/behaviors, it is far more damaging when they commodify/police women’s bodies than men’s bodies. And it has ramifications for men as well! (ie: you must be the opposite of a woman and therefore be violent and be at a higher risk of someone committing a violent act against you.) Feminism does not hate every individual man and not every individual man is our enemy. However, the group of men as a whole and the consequences it has for women AND every individual man is our enemy and what we fight against. So, my issue isn’t that this encourages men to shoot women more than men or vice versa, but that it encourages violence against women at all in a space where women, traditionally, do not have a voice and cannot humanize themselves.
Hopefully my explanation of feminism and what we fight for, microaggressions, and how microaggressions only work when there is an overarching system of oppression against you (ie: not the same implications for women than men or even the fact that the female dummy is slutty and the men aren’t sexualized at all) helps answer your third point, because I definitely agree feminism is a human issue not just a women’s issue. :)
I guess that may be what I’m arguing, depending on what you mean by male targets. When tagets first came out, they were sex/genderless - just a figure. Now, because of sexism, all neutral bodies are assumed male. If a paper target with a smaller frame were created, still no problem. When these models become anatomically correct is when it becomes an issue. When these targets become sexualized, it becomes an issue. A body is a body. Where you shoot on a man, you will shoot on a woman with the same effects. Therefore, the targets should remain neutral, and I’ve never seen a non-neutral (hell even non-paper) human target until now. (And that’s saying a lot, considering my uncle is a sheriff and I’ve been with him to the range.) Anything that makes a target more life like is damaging to ANY sex/gender/human being and should be fought against, in my opinion. In an arena where we are typically unwelcome, unless as a sexy chick with a pink gun, it is difficult for us to know what happens surrounding guns and targets. My house has two gun cabinets, two tree stands, and several animal shaped and geometric targets. I’m still not a part of the good ol boys gun club; so, I’m still out of the loop. See how that works? Also, as an aside, and I don’t think you were intentionally being unkind, but I’m pretty offended by the line “crying oppression,” because I don’t think I’m crying, being hysterical, or making unfounded claims. I believe I am asserting that this is oppression, because it is, and providing evidence to support my claim. (This is also a microaggression as women are historically linked to hysteria, thanks to Freud being an idiot, and men are seen as rational/calm/more intelligent. Not trying to be annoying, just something to think about.)
But beyond being completely tasteless and a stupid idea, it’s incredibly damaging and harmful. It literally plants the idea that ex-girlfriends are “sluts”. In this society, being a slut is a bad thing, and it makes you more deserving to be raped or abused. It’s also sending the message that sluts are so worthless you could kill them. You’re punishing a girl for having her breasts somewhat exposed. Especially with the Steubenville case where people sympathized with the rapists and said the girl deserved it for being a slut and leaving with them, rape culture and portrayals of women who have agency of their body/sexuality deserving to be punished/abused has devastating consequences. It also puts forth the notion that sluts are there for your enjoyment, whether you’re killing them or fucking them. If it were a current girlfriend, she would be presented as “moral” and “decent”. And I don’t know, the reason people get more upset when women are involved is either because this kind of stuff actually affects women more or because women are thought of as delicate/helpless victims who should be protected by men, not harmed. Both of these reasons are a result of sexism/patriarchy and have consequences for all sexes/genders.
And while yes, the men are topless, they aren’t sexualized. A bare chest calls to mind notions of masculinity, savagery, power. To kill a bare chested man, as opposed to a clothed man, is to exercise ultimate power/control, you are conquering the pinnacle of masculinity, strength, and power. While this too is a result of sexism, it’s implications are different than those for women.
If the woman were dressed differently, it would definitely have less of an impact on rape culture, for sure. I think I articulated why in the other paragraph pretty well. I can’t speak for all feminists, and I’m sure there are some who would make that claim. And I don’t think they would be wrong. Encouraging violence towards women is encouraging and fostering hate of women - all women, those with power and those without. However, in society, there is a schism between “slutty” and “respectable.” Before being seen as a businesswoman, that model would be seen as not a slut but a prude. Therefore, she would be being punished for being a woman who does not make herself accesible to men, not for making herself too accessible to men. However, slut shaming is a category all its own. And it’s unfortunate that there has to be a “regular” person on the street, you know? Like it speaks to how dressing conservatively is seen as prudish and undesirable/worthy of punishment and dressing “slutty” is also undesirable/worthy of punishment. These are microaggressions again. This would be another intersection, that of domestic violence and rape culture. Both of these issues involve sexism and misogyny, but they manifest differently. Therefore, her appearance is incredibly relevant.
I’m also really enjoying our conversation and our ability to discuss such triggering/loaded topics in an open/understanding way. I definitely see all of your points and agree with many of them, and hopefully I’ve done the same for you. If that’s the case, it would be even better to see our points of divergence transform into areas of understanding. I look forward to your response, and sorry it took me so long!!
if you message me on anon, I don’t know anything about your identity or experiences. As a result, they cannot be taken into account when I respond. (ie: I’m not sure if the last anon I answered identifies as queer/trans* or their class, race, age, gender, sex, educational background, etc.) Because I’m not humanizing you (based on a lack of knowledge of who you are), it’s easier for me to be aggressive/rude/write you off. Also, because I don’t understand the point of being anon except being embarrassed, nervous, or a troll, I’m going to not give you the benefit of the doubt if I’m unsure as to whether or not you’re being rude/trolling and I’m not going to explain how you’re being offensive/oppressive in a nice, understanding, gentle way. I don’t want you, if you are well intentioned/trying to learn or understand OR you agree with some of the things the person said/had those questions, to think I dislike you/think you’re stupid/etc. Because, honestly, if you talk to me not on anon or explain your circumstances in the anon ask, I will have an actual conversation with you where we both hear each other out and learn.
For some reason, every time I’m snarky/attack-y/assert myself in an answer to an anon (especially if they come back and apologize/say they weren’t trying to be mean), I imagine an LGBTQ, preteen girl from a conservative area feeling like shit because I shit on/dismissed certain ideas she held or questions she also had and no longer wanting to explore queer/radical politics and identities. And I cringe. Because I probably don’t think those things about you, and I promise that me disagreeing with an opinion you have and thinking it’s a horrible line of thinking doesn’t mean I dislike you on the whole. And I’m just really sorry to everyone I unintentionally dismiss/demean through these anons. So, if I say anything that offends you/hurts your feelings, please please please just shoot me a message either not on anon or explaining the relevant aspects of your identity/circumstances/experiences. Or, shit, even an anon that says hey, what you just said made me feel (blank), because (blank).
And if I say something that is triggering/offensive, please call me on my shit.
idk just a thought
Again, the post isn’t about parenting or childhood development; it’s about gender expression. So, again, the tags do not contradict the idea. Trans*, queer, and lesbian/gay communities are some of the most harmed by normative gender policing. So, a post deconstructing gender (especially in a camp-y manner) is absolutely related to these groups. What you’re arguing is no different than saying if I tag a post about the prison industrial complex with trans* or PoC, I am wrong and it’s jacked up because I’m saying all trans* individuals and people of color are criminals, when, in all actuality, I would be highlighting the groups most affected by the PIC. It’s very alarming to me that, even after explaining the ways in which these groups are all brought together through the social construction of gender and the oppressions that arise through policing gender, you’re not getting coalition and saying a tag must be directly related to content.
I didn’t think you were trying to be offensive, but that doesn’t change the fact you were. You just policed my articulation and understanding of my own identity and coalitions. You said you understood what I was doing and still disagreed with it. Telling someone they are experiencing their identity incorrectly is always offensive and never okay. You spoke down to me at the end of the last ask.
Hey, it’s awesome that you’re interested in helping out! Let me explain my project and how it will work. If you’re still interested, I’ll take down your e-mail address for now and, when the project gets going (late August/early September), I’ll send you an e-mail and see if you’re still interested!
So, I’m combining elements of queer/trans* studies, critical social theory, and psychology. While critical social theory/queer/trans* studies focus on the overarching structures/aboriginal histories and work to fight state violence/institutionalized oppression, psychology focuses on the individual. As the queer/trans* movement has been hijacked and mainstreamed by the gay and lesbian movement, I want to bring the focus back to radical queer politics, intersecting identities, and coalition, rejecting a homonormative narrative and the devastating consequences it has for coalition and non-normative queers/trans* individuals. What is so damaging about the messages being sent regarding non-normative folks, their treatment in the legal system, and media portrayals is the internaliation of these messages and policing of their identities (especially from homonormative LGB people). What I’m exploring is whether or not the introduction of a critical social lens, aboriginal histories, and a safe/supportive community (online or in person, depending on where you’re located) will have an impact on the life chances and overall “success” of quer/trans* people. Essentially, when you realize there’s nothing wrong with you and your mistreatment is based on unfounded logic/institutionalized oppressions (as opposed to individual hate crimes etc) and you have a group of individuals encouraging you to explore this line of thinking, encouraging you to express yourself however you’d like, and helping you work against oppression/keep you safe, will you be at a lower risk of homelessness, sickness, mental illness, etc. and will you be motivated to change the system? (Some of the models I’m looking at are HMI, FIERCE, and QEJ here in NYC.) Additionally, will your empowerment/assertion of self and raising awareness about state violences/criminalizations of certain populations (including queer/trans*) change other people’s attitudes and decrease your likelihood of being imprisoned or unemployed? As far as your participation goes, I’d be looking at the first set of questions only. (The second half, how other people respond, will be based on the psychology of schemas/self more than anything else and will be explored by interviewing non trans/queer identified individuals and all of the initial participants a few years down the line. It will also require looking at other data/literature on these topics further down the line, as queer/trans* activism gains more momentum.)
What that means for you is I would make up self efficacy/self esteem and personal history surveys for those participating as an initial intake. Then, throughout the semester, I’ll be meeting with and talking to the participants and disseminating critical social texts, aboriginal works, queer/trans* scholarship, and discussing state violence/oppressions. Additionally, the participants could engage in an anonymous online forum to further establish community and learn together and I would make sure they had information about local LGBTQ resources and encourage them to go, if at all possible (or even joining a school’s GSA/making other queer/trans* friends, etc.). There would be a few more surveys throughout the semester as well. Because I’m using this when I go to be a phd candidate, the study would last a few years, but the contact I have with the participants will be sporadic throughout the time frame. (I’m hoping for 5-10 years so I can get a true feel for the overall impact of a change in pedagogy/see long term effects.)
That was a lot, and I’m sure I rambled/was confusing, so if you have any questions about the project, please feel free to ask! :)
Support the troops, not the war.
I think neoliberal capitalism.
I think lol post colonial.
I think globalization.
I think Zionism.
I think post 9/11.
I think nationalism.
I think anti-immigration.
I think it’s sad.
I think it’s expensive.
I think it shouldn’t happen.
Nope those are tags relating to identities deeply routed in gender and the most hurt by gender constructions. As a result, it’s a related post. Nowhere in my post did I even gender my cousin, let alone refer to my cousin as trans* or make any assumptions about my cousin’s sexuality/sexual orientation. The point was to say hey we have allies who aren’t associating gender with sexuality/sexual orientation/sex. Also, people who browse those tags either identify as such, are allies, or want to learn. Having a post showing the ways to fight gender constructions/assumptions and, as a result, diminish transphobia and homophobia is actually pretty good I’d say. I think it’s a little jacked that you’re assuming Im assigning anything to my cousin and discrediting coalition/allyship within our communities, imo.PS - Senior at NYU concentrating in queer/trans* studies, critical social theory, and psychology. Queer lesbian/gender fluid identified. Literally nothing you said was new information.
This is my Aunt Jess and her two babies, Dommie and Coley.
Aunt Jess lets her boys decide who they want to be and what they like. As a result, it’s okay that Dommie’s favorite color is purple/pink, even his binkies have to follow suit!
And when the State Fair ran out of pink sunglasses, Dommie reluctantly settled for pink flowers
And, instead of making a mockery of Dommie’s preferences, Aunt Jess didn’t even bat an eye at her son’s non-normative color preferences.
And, it’s even okay for Dommie to like purple AND wear necklaces!
Dommie is also allowed to choose his own toys.
And he gets to choose how to dress and how to keep his hair!
And Aunt Jess lets Dommie indulge any activity/hobby he is interested in, even the more effeminate ones such as…
1) Creating masterpieces
2) Playing masterpieces
But, this isn’t Aunt Jessica’s way of “having the girl she wasn’t blessed with,” because she allows Dommie to engage in more typically male activities, such as:
1) Hunting (not gathering)
2) Surviving in the wilderness
3) Showing his masculinity/toughness at billard halls
4) Exploring/Conquering nature
5) Playing an instrument that is a panty dropper
6) Playing a video game where you play a panty-dropping instrument
7) Keeping the order/peace
8) Saving Lives
9) Risking his life in extreme sports
10) Risking his life in combat with his brother
11) Being an athlete
12) And, of course, driving (and not stopping for directions)
So, it should be no surprise that, when Dommie asked to be a “purple sparkly princess” for Halloween, my Aunt obliged. And it should also be no surprise that she lets him love Justin Bieber. When people criticized Aunt Jessica for “letting” Dommie be a princess, she responded with the simplest fuck you in the world: “He wanted to be a princess. Why wouldn’t I let him? Don’t you want your children to be happy?” Essentially, she responded to hate with this:
And as for everyone worried my aunt’s “immoral” parenting will ruin Dommie, well…
I’d say he’s doing pretty fucking well.
yr prob p confused as 2 y i have a v and titties.
its ok, me 2, idk y.But like if my hips werent so fucking huge, I’d prob have the same body as a ten yr old boy. Child porn on da dash
what do you call a woman with an opinion
What do you call a guy that makes sexist jokes
TW: hate crimes, anti-gay violence
Last night, on the same day New Yorkers took to the streets to protest a recent slew of violence against LGBT people, three more gay men were reportedly attacked.
One was Dan Contarino, a former nightclub promoter who was brutally beaten in the East Village and had to undergo surgery as a result. Then a gay couple, ages 41 and 42, were attacked in SoHo around 5am. All the victims said they were berated with anti-gay slurs before and during the attacks.
Seven gay bashings in New York City in 30 days, including one murder. Try and tell me hate crimes aren’t real.
And the village use to be a sort of safe haven for us. I use to feel to welcomed..
I go to school at NYU. My apartment is on 13th street between 5th and 6th, just a few blocks from where the murder happened. I was spending the night at my friend, Becca’s, on Macdougal between third and bleecker when the murderer was apprehended on third and Macdougal. This is my home, and I refuse to let someone make me feel afraid. I refuse to let anyone make my friends feel afraid. I refuse to let anyone hurt my friends. Every single marginalized individual is just like me and just like my friends. Yes, violent acts and murders are horrible and should never happen, but we can’t allow these major, rare events to paint the portrait of homophobia in the United States. Homophobia, like many oppressions, such as transphobia and racism, are institutionalized. We feel these effects each and every day: from where we can live to where we can work. If we want hate crimes to stop, we must fight the institution itself, not the individual. If homophobia were not omnipresent in laws, media, and religion, it would not manifest, and especially not in such horrific ways. Instead of being further forced out of the village post/mid-gentrification efforts, we need to be active. We need to build community. We need to build coalitions. We need to fight state violence and institutionalized oppression. Don’t be blinded by individual rights/equality politics. To get rid of the rapist, we don’t tell women how not to be raped, but we fight misogyny and patriarchy on an institutional/state level. To get rid of the homophobe, we don’t tell queer individuals to avoid the village and police themselves and their relationships, but we fight homophobia and every other oppressive force on an institutional level.