“There ought to be books for sleeping : in the most vicious style, with barely chewable words, long as fingers, words that twirl into incomprehensible silver curlicues at the end ; consonantal knickknackeries (or at most an occasional dark vowel in ) : books to fight thoughts.”—
If you could require the president to read one book, what would it be?
I suppose at least a little faith in literature’s ability to make us better is what lies behind this question. But I have no such faith. The president has already read many wonderful books from many different cultures. Now we need him to act justly in certain matters: to stop killing people extrajudicially, and to stop deporting people with such enthusiasm. I doubt that more reading will quicken his conscience in these matters.
“In war, men are seen as combatants, women as victims — even if the woman was a revolutionary … For online consumers of the resulting images, the women’s suffering is the element of a conflict that those far removed from the conflict can still access. Blue-bra girl. Woman in the red dress. … Once viral, their images lose politics, lose geography, lose protest. They continue to resonate for what they gain: our sustained gaze. Like saints before them, protest’s girl martyrs are famous not because of what they did but because of what was done to them”—
This thing? (Except crossout Greenpeace and fill in Ellen DeGeneres and PETA.)
Well, ithappened. To the point that people are so angry with Tagaq that they’ve photoshopped pictures of her child into photos of (white) sealhunters killing babyseals. Her toddler was replaced with the seal in the picture.
tl;dr - Western white rabid animal rights activists would rather have people of color assimilate, die, or account for the ruin Western industralization has caused on this planet; even if certain methods of eating are the only way groups can survive.
Irony: Tanya Tagaq has actually collaborated with Björk and was featured on Medulla.
I’ve started researching incarceration/prison/punishment in the “real” sense as opposed to the Foucauldian things I learned about surveillance, discipline, punishment …and can’t stop thinking about it.
Great resources coming out of the States (Angela Davis, Michelle Alexander, Dean Spade, etc) but is anyone familiar with Canadian researchers in this field? My 1st year sociology prof Gillian Balfour I’ve found has written some pretty good stuff but I’m on the hunt for more of intersectional analysis, more recent about the federal government’s policy shifts, and some hard facts.
"Self-destruction for love is a particularly Durasian obsession. "You destroy me. You’re so good for me," repeats the woman in "Hiroshima Mon Amour" to her lover. I ask her today why sex and death are always entwined for her.
"It’s difficult to articulate. It’s erotic." She takes a deep breath. "I had a lover with whom I drank a lot of alcohol." She pauses, staring straight at me. Her face is expressionless, her dark eyes are absolutely still. "I’m acquainted with it, the desire to be killed. I know it exists.""
“And this doubt grows around you. This doubt is alone, it is the doubt of solitude. It is born of it, of solitude. At least the word can be named. I think a lot of people couldn’t bear what I’m saying here; they would run away. Perhaps that’s why everyone isn’t a writer. Yes. That’s it. That’s the difference. That’s the truth. Nothing else. Doubt is writing. Thus, it is also the writer. And with the writer, everyone writes. We’ve always known that.”—
I WAS ALWAYS TURNED ON BY THE ANONYMITY OF PRIVACY. LIKE MANY, I EXPLORED MY ADOLESCENT SEXUAL CURIOSITY IN AIM CHAT ROOMS, CAT-FISHING FOR THE REPRESSED BABY-BOOMERS WHO NEVER ENJOYED SUCH A LUXURY IN THEIR OWN YOUTH. MY FIRST BLOWJOB AND THE FIRST TIME I WAS FUCKED WERE…
“Great fashion writing doesn’t reduce everything to what is for sale, what’s hot and not. Great fashion writing looks at clothing and the uses of clothing with the same amount of cultural reverence we give a Lars von Trier movie or the U.S. Open, as something that exists, and it asks why it exists, and how it fits into its larger culture.”—Haley Mlotek, On Lena, On Rihanna, On Kimye: The Very Necessary Death Of “Vogue” (March 24th, 2014)
"[WOC Selfies are] not designated for white consumption; it’s not even about my consumption - it’s about the picture being theirs and whatever they would like to do with it. It signifies humanity and personhood; away from whiteness and independent of whiteness. The possibility of being possible on one’s own terms."
I wrote a post about brown and black girl selfies, why self-representation is important, and why they’ve helped me down the road with regards to self-esteem in the face of white beauty standards.
A love letter to all my woc friends I’ve met on the internet.
“If you’re female, it’s far more socially acceptable to express self-deprecation than self-love, and it’s more acceptable for anybody to express numbly detached nihilism than Perfect Pussy’s particular brand of hard-won, audaciously blazing joy”—
“Another myth that is firmly upheld is that disabled people are dependent and non-disabled people are independent. No one is actually independent. This is a myth perpetuated by disablism and driven by capitalism - we are all actually interdependent. Chances are, disabled or not, you don’t grow all of your food. Chances are, you didn’t build the car, bike, wheelchair, subway, shoes, or bus that transports you. Chances are you didn’t construct your home. Chances are you didn’t sew your clothing (or make the fabric and thread used to sew it). The difference between the needs that many disabled people have and the needs of people who are not labelled as disabled is that non-disabled people have had their dependencies normalized. The world has been built to accommodate certain needs and call the people who need those things independent, while other needs are considered exceptional. Each of us relies on others every day. We all rely on one another for support, resources, and to meet our needs. We are all interdependent. This interdependence is not weakness; rather, it is a part of our humanity.”—AJ Withers Disability Politics and Theory p109 (via dandyfied)
“While surveillance is omnipresent, its watch is not universally aimed. As these detection technologies become more exact, our identity categories – our race, gender, sexual preference, or religious affiliations – will be used to monitor and police specific subsets of the population. Certain faces are the subjects of protection while others are criminalized before they are even surveilled […] Only some faces – mainly young, female, and white – can hide through cosmetic decoration. Others can’t afford to be seen.”—
“The rise of the selfie coincides with revelations of mass surveillance: We have all started taking more photos of ourselves as we’ve become subjects to the government’s massive recording apparatuses. Being photographed and monitored constantly, whether by friends’ cell phones or the NSA, is shattering already unstable subject positions around the photograph, not to mention the value of differentiating between public and private space… The technology that makes the selfie possible is also the technology that makes mass surveillance simple.”—Jenna Brager, in Selfie Control The New Inquiry (March 17th, 2014)
“Photography has become so fundamental to the way we see that “photography” and “seeing” are becoming more and more synonymous. The ubiquity of photography is, perhaps ironically, a challenge to curators, practitioners, and critics. Why look at any particular image, when they are literally everywhere? Perhaps “photography” has become so all-pervasive that it no longer makes sense to think about it as a discreet practice or field of inquiry. In other words, perhaps “photography,” as a meaningful cultural trope, is over.”—I. Is Photography Over? (via nathanjurgenson)
“Being a ‘public figure’ whose life was recorded and transmitted to others used to be the tax on having a certain amount of power. If having a public Twitter account now qualifies you, as they suggest, we’re counting a lot of people just trying to talk to their friends and maybe make some new ones. For journalists, these people require an ethical axis beyond public-private—one that acknowledges the high personal stakes these conversations involve for their participants and not, say, Hamilton Nolan, who wrote the Gawker post flippantly dismissing the entire debate. That Gawker would sooner make the vacuously provocative claim that these people are using Twitter wrong than listen to them explain how they’d like Twitter to be used is a sad echo of the argument that got us here in the first place: those women were asking for it with their attention-seeking behavior.”—
an excerpt from “Twitter, Rape, and Privacy on Social Media” (x)
This arose from a discussion about what sexual assault survivors were wearing when they were attacked in an effort to continue to debunk rape apologists. It was a very moving discussion originated by a Black woman on Twitter who is also a survivor. Well of course, the mainstream feminist movement could just let them have their moment… or report on it responsibly. They had to insert themselves… and did it in a disgusting manner. When they were called out on it, they first responded by saying “well, the tweets are public so we have every legal right….” to which i ask the question do we really need to legislate basic decency? After that it turned into painting the woman who lead the discussion as an angry Black woman attacking the nice, helpful white ladies.
meanwhile, her picture was plastered across BF without her consent… and of course it made its rounds on Facebook and everywhere else… even her younger brother sent her a text message showing how she was plastered on the site.
I was a part of this discussion and one of the survivors who spoke out though my tweet in particular wasn’t used in the story. The original conversation was difficult and cathartic. But the mainstream media and many White feminists decided to abuse and exploit this situation. BuzzFeed and Poynter have engaged in irreparable damage and clearly abuse power. This claim that “if I can see it, it is mine” in online journalism—especially when it is almost always top down abuse of power and especially so when the target is not only a woman of colour but a Black woman—is unbearable. Hard to get into detail for those who don’t use Twitter and aren’t seeing it unfold in real time. Not interested in listing names as to not cause those harmed even more harm. But it is active violence now. I hope the Black woman who started the conversation seeks an attorney at this point. Mainstream media’s answer to "don’t exploit sensitive tweets on sexual assault" is "well don’t share then!" Sounds familiar? Rape culture.
“The strangers who call me Jessica at publicity appearances lean in far too close. They hiss it as if they have top-secret information. All they’re doing is letting me know that they had 30 seconds to spend on Google and no sense of propriety — which may sound funny coming from a woman who flagrantly disregards it herself. They’re often the same people who refer to my orifices as “that” instead of “your,” as though the body part in question is running around free-range instead of attached to a person with free will and autonomy.”—Can We Learn About Privacy From Porn Stars? - NYTimes.com
“She is the first to admit to being a control freak who recently attempted to direct her own death scene. At home and feeling under the weather, she became convinced her hours were numbered. “I found the idea rather disagreeable that the moment after my death, I would lose total control of what happened, and someone would have to find my remains.” As it turned out, she was just suffering from wind, but the experience was humbling.”
“She describes herself as an “overheated kettle that you can’t turn down”, but puts it down to impatience. “You always have to work as if what you’re working on could be your last,” she says. “I want to move on, even if I have to crawl.” Chytilova cultivates the art of being deliberately ruthless. “I have no desire to cuddle my audience,” she emphatically states.”
“So does Chytilova consider herself a feminist, and if so, how does this affect her film-making? “Is your newspaper a serious one?” She peers over her large sunglasses. “You ask pointless and primitive questions.”
Her steam rising, she explains that she does not believe in feminism per se, but in individualism. “If there’s something you don’t like, don’t keep to the rules - break them. I’m an enemy of stupidity and simple-mindedness in both men and women and I have rid my living space of these traits.”“