White Feminism, We Meet Again...

Share on Twitter: Tweet

I'm just going to make my own post instead of reblogging on Tumblr. This is that thing I wanted to talk about last night but said I already knew the answer... And the fact that I keep seeing this quote pretty much just reinforces it.

Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions, for safety in the streets, for child care, for social welfare, for rape crisis centres, women’s refuges, reforms in the law. If someone says, ‘Oh, I’m not a feminist’, I ask, ‘Why? What’s your problem?’  
--- Dale Spender, Man Made Language.  (via izzyinvisible)

What I wanted to talk about is the massive disconnect that seems to exist every time white women talk about sexism and feminism. And I don't mean the feminists who understand intersectionality and why it matters, and those who actively try to combat -isms within the feminist movement and recognize that the movement needs to be more inclusive. This isn't about you. (You probably already know my issues with the above quote anyway.)

I specifically mean those who don't. This is entirely about those who don't, or who think they do but don't, and the women who can't translate one to the other. tl;dr - why don't you omfg. When I'm seeing the same women constantly talking about sexism but can't seem to grasp the idea of applying the same exact concepts to dealing with racism.

The same white women who will in one breath say that men's opinions on sexism don't matter because they don't understand and could never, and in the next, stick your nose into a conversation about cultural appropriation and racism like you understand, like your opinion matters. Like white women talking over women of color is NOTHING like men talking over women. Like you're not privileged at all over WOC.

You'll defend the racist rich white woman who regularly steals from, mocks, and belittles trans* women and WOC, because you think she's a feminist icon. (See: Madonna, Lady Gaga, Jennifer Lawrence, Laci Green, Ke$ha, Lena Dunham, to mention women constantly on my dashboard; Margaret Sanger, etc.) You refuse to understand that in many of these cases, the harm they do to other women tends to drastically overshadow whatever little good they do. The good that they do is only for you, at the expense of other women. 

You want to talk about how feminism has never practiced any cruelties? Believe that no violence has ever occurred or been supported in the name of feminism? (Because of course nothing that ever happens to other women counts as violence...) Racism is violence. Ableism is violence. Cissexism is violence. Classism is violence. So much of white women's empowerment involved forcing Western beliefs and practices on Indigenous and Black women. Stealing and/or killing their children. (Funny that the quote should come from a white Australian feminist....)  Using their bodies for science, and other things I care not to mention right now. Praising white mothers, demonizing mothers of color. Calling a little Black girl a c*nt and then arguing why it's "not even offensive omg why are you making such a big deal out of it FEMINISM YAY."  You attack hijabis in the name of "saving them" from their own culture, you mock weaves and steal dreads and the fashion of WOC. You want equality for women in the workplace, and oh god could I go on forever about this, but you steal their fashion and their culture and the credit and give them nothing in return. Call their businesses quaint and steal their products for your own. You refuse to acknowledge that so much of what you know and love and worship came from WOC. You say it looks better on you anyway.

And I could also add in a part about how the start of white feminism (which completely ignores the efforts of Native women, btw) and the women's suffrage movement was in part due to Black men gaining rights (before white women). Or a part about how white feminism tends to vilify Black men while giving white men a pass (see: Chris Brown, Michael Vick, vs. Hugo S., Alec Baldwin, Jeremy Renner, Michael Fassbender, Robert Downey Jr, etc). Because even though they have male privilege over you, your white privilege still oppresses them too, and your empowerment has historically been used in ways that hurt them, especially as children. But let's keep this simple today and keep the focus on women.

And it brings me right back again to the same question I started with - why is it that you can understand one form of violence but not realize or care that you're perpetuating others?

Why is it that you can believe in and use anti-oppression rhetoric for one issue, but not comprehend and translate the SAME EXACT IDEAS for another?

I used to think it was nothing but cognitive dissonance, but therein lies the problem - there is no dissonance. There should be. It is a HUGE problem that it doesn't even faze you. And that is the sole reason why I'm writing this. 

If someone says, ‘Oh, I’m not a feminist’, I ask, ‘Why? What’s your problem?’”

Because mainstream feminism has historically been heterosexist, racist, classist, cissexist, ableist, etc., and as evidenced by that quote, continues to ignore that fact. All of the things mentioned in that quote have at some point been enacted in such a way that excludes or hurts many who are not cis white women. And it continues to ignore, erase, and contribute to the oppression of poor women, trans* women, and women of color, and any intersections thereof. And pretending otherwise ensures that your moment will never truly achieve equality for anyone who's not just like you.

"Intent matters."

Share on Twitter: Tweet

Something else I've been thinking about, and why Sunday's events were so triggering for me.

TW:  Emotional abuse and gaslighting, discussion of intent in regards to racism and other forms of oppression

To White Feminists - aka a Plea for Intersectionality

Share on Twitter: Tweet

[TRIGGER WARNING - Discussion of racism, rape culture, slurs, White Feminism, Laci Green, Islamophobia (a mention, from an outsider’s perspective of the criticism. I cannot and will not speak for Muslim people.), transphobia/cissexism, heterosexism, and sexism in general.]


And since there's so much, this will probably barely scratch the surface of all I want to say. And it's probably been said a million times before, and better. Whatever.

It’s hard for me to describe just how frustrated I have been this past week. Frustrated, angry, resentful, disappointed, hurt, anxious, cheated, disgusted, you name it. And much of it because of this one little white girl and her mob of robot followers.

I’m trying very hard right now to keep impartial, emotionless if possible, so that I can say what I need to say and put this all to rest. To all of those thinking they’ve been getting an “Angry Black Woman ™” vibe from me this week - no shit, Sherlock. I am FURIOUS. (And while I generally do not identify as “woman” anymore on a regular basis, I stand in solidarity with my fellow  queer PoCs. Still a FAABulous bitch.) We are sick and tired of this bullshit. But at this point, we are mostly just tired.

So let’s start at the beginning, long before Little Miss Sex+ got her lily-white ass in our business. If you ask a woman of color, particularly a queer woman of color, about (mainstream) feminism and what it means for them, you’re likely to get a very negative answer. You’ll probably find that very few of us identify as feminists, for a myriad of reasons. (You see that sentence? Consider that my thesis statement. Because that’s pretty much what this ENTIRE argument is going to be about. And I'm even going to include subheadings~ ooo)

tl;dr - Here's the thing - yes, women in general face a shit ton of oppression. But these “feminists” are fooling themselves if they think our oppression is equal, or if they continue to refuse to acknowledge that a huge portion of women are still more privileged than the majority of the world's population. 
Feminism is highly problematic. And when we try to speak up about the flaws of feminism (and how it does not account for all of us), we’re silenced - whether with the label of “anti-feminist” or “ignorant.” Feminism is clearly not a movement for all women. Just cis, white, middle class women.

Are you fucking kidding me? SMH, #PsychologyToday. It's not your data, actually, it's how you presented it.

Share on Twitter: Tweet

Christ almighty... When you can get an atheist to say that, you know you've fucked up.

So... The Psychology Today article everyone's been ranting about. Thought you might like to hear from someone who has also done that same exact experiment. And did it RIGHT. (Yes, I am fucking proud of myself for what I did in college. Because I was good at it back then.)


After rereading this "article," several times, I've come to the conclusion that I can't even attempt to argue this seriously. This is also a prime example of why most real psychologists hold Psychology Today in such low regard...

I did my Junior Thesis on an extremely similar subject as the Psychology Today article that's been going around. Attractiveness as a function of ethnicity. My actual project was a little more complicated than that, since we actually were looking to compare people across ethnic groups (a lot of people are pretty racist..), but that was the basis of it. (And my Senior Thesis advisor has done a great deal of research on ethnicity. And I minored in sociology and focused a lot of my research on ethnicity and racism. Long story short, I'm pretty damn familiar with the subject, ok?) In fact, I still have a copy of everything around here somewhere... So before anyone starts attacking the study itself, can I just say that the actual procedure (and MOST people's results) aren't as blatantly sickening as this author's horrible attempts to justify participant data based on their own misguided beliefs on either how to present empirical data or what constitutes actual attractiveness. Because that's not how this study works, or how psychological research works. This garbage is not even submissible for publication in a real journal... If you want, if I ever find where the hell I hid my own research, I can show you what this is SUPPOSED to look like. Again, technically I'm not supposed to publish the actual results or anything, but I can at least share my intro and conclusion, which has a bunch of real research articles with legitimate data and results... Names off the top of my head-  Langlois & Stephan... I remember because Stephan's first name is Cookie and her study was done with little children in the 70s. But anyway, it actually measures implicit racism to an extent. It's not supposed to promote it...

So...the article and it's many means of FAIL. Are you kidding me... This is Psych 101! I honestly don't even know where to begin with this... I wanted to give a level headed, objective analysis, but the more I read this, the more annoyed I get. Because everything is just... so wrong. Their data may actually be "correct." In fact, in some ways it is very much similar to the results of other studies. But the way that it's been presented has destroyed any credibility.

I can't even... I seriously can't even... I can't take this seriously one bit. I can hear my professors screaming in my ears about this... They would have failed.

So warning: this may be ranty.

Maybe I should just start with what they got right and where they went wrong. I can't even take any of what they actually said seriously because whoever wrote this clearly does not even understand the most basic of research writing concepts...

Actual procedure? Right.
Actual data? Hard to fuck that up.
Everything else? WRONG.

The fact that they're presenting participant data as actual 100% indisputible OBJECTIVE evidence of physical attractiveness of ethnic groups over others = SO MUCH FUCKING FAIL. The fact that they're using ANY of this data as "this group is more attractive than this one" = SO MUCH FUCKING FAIL. How do I put this... In this kind of research, you're trying to measure something that is subjective and qualitative. So to do that, you have to create some sort of quantitative way to measure it - hence the scale. So yes, for you the data becomes somewhat objective so that you can properly analyze it and run it through SPSS (statistical software). But when you're talking about it in in the results, when you're talking about it generally and trying to draw conclusions about what the numbers imply, you have to remember that this is still SUBJECTIVE data you're talking about. You talk specifically about your own participants and/or you generalize about how others might perceive things based on your results. But you never, ever prove anything. With research, you can prove something false, but you can never prove it to be true. And this is even more so when you're dealing with subjective, qualitative assessment.

So for you, dear author, to try to present any of this as legitimate fact is wrong. I honestly believe that this entire situation is most likely due to your ignorance about the scientific research, and evolution, than it is to rampant racism. I don't believe that you intended to come off as racist. But the fact remains that you did.



A) This is PERCEIVED attractiveness. This is not factual, objective data. It is 100% subjective. And not based on your own opinions, but on how participants view, process, and verbally interpret their own perceptions of the research materials.

"... black women are significantly less phyiscally attractive than women of other races." No. "Black women were rated to be less physically attractive than women of other races." See the difference? See how much of a difference that makes?

AND FOR GODSSAKE WHERE ARE YOUR P VALUES?!?!

"Black women are objectively less physically attractive..." NO. You are supposed to talk about the rating scale. That is the only "objective" data you have, not their attractiveness itself. No one is objectively more or less attractive. Attractiveness is PERCEIVED. How many times do I have to say that???

Ok. Ok. I'm going to breathe now, think about what I remember, and then I'm going to tackle their "conclusion"...  My class also discussed weight and attractiveness. Yes, people within a certain weight bracket are often deemed more attractive. Ethnicity and attractiveness - in general, most studies do in fact find a bias towards Caucasians and against African Americans. Gender and attractiveness - yes, most studies do tend to find that participants believe that women are more attractive. And yes, many MANY studies so believe that attractiveness is based on several evolutionary factors that are said to measure a person's genetic advantages and disadvantages. Think Darwin and desirable traits that one would want to pass on to offspring to ensure that they survive and reproduce. Ok, all of that being said...

Biological and genetic differences between the races - FALSE. Because A) RACE DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST. It is a man-made sociological concept that assumes genetic differences based on geographic history and genealogy. Real scientists do not use "race" as a factor of anything, because it's just a "theory" or set of theories used to justify the subordination of different peoples. That's as much as I'm going to say, because I could rant about this forever. And the only reason ethnicity is real is because of the fact that we have diverse regions of the globe and shared genealogies, cultural traits, and shared group history, etc. Any physical differences are due to evolution and geography, not because we are different "breeds" of human. Skin color is so often used to delineate race or ethnicity, when it's completely irrelevant to both. I don't have the time, nor the patience to explain this, but find me tomorrow if you need to know and I'll tell you what I know. Or google it. Anyway, this is all about the traits that have helped them survive in their regional climate. The fact that I would have to explain this to a "professional" in the field of evolutionary psychology is just astounding... YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE EXPERT HERE. And I'm sorry, but if LSE stands for the London School of Economics, I fail to see how and why I'm supposed to consider you to be a credible source for this. Call me an elitist. I don't give a fuck.

AND DO NOT EVEN FUCKING GET ME STARTED ON "RACIAL DIFFERENCES OF INTELLIGENCE". OH MY FUCKING GOD DO NOT EVEN GO THERE. I think I might need to write an entirely new post on this line alone...

Everything in this final paragraph is complete and utter bullshit, just an author trying to justify an already unsalvagable argument. No sources either... Attractiveness is NOT a measure of health. Technically you'd be more correct if you said it's a measure of PERCEIVED genetic health. No, black women are not less physically attractive. What you mean to say is that participants rated them to be less physically attractive. And I'm not even going to touch this "existed longer in evolutionary history... mutations decrease physical attractiveness" bit you have going on... I don't know where you pulled that from, because your "logic" isn't just flawed, it simply isn't there. You're trying to tell me that descendents of African women are less physically attractive (to whom, might I ask) because you seem to believe that their DNA has mutated far more than other ethnic groups, which you also seem to believe is directly related to genetic health in that it has reduced genetic health. If any of that is true, then you're wrong anyway. Because the entire point of genetic mutation is to INCREASE genetic health, not decrease it, and surely a "race" with a longer existence in "human evolutionary history" would have excellent genetic health to have survived so long, yes? And then, by this "logic," those increased genetic mutations equal increased genetic health equals increased physical attractiveness-- which is inconsistent with your data. Hmm... Oops. Better luck next time.

 "The only thing I can think of..." See, that's your problem right there. That tells me that a) you didn't do any actual research before starting this; b) you're trying to force a conclusion that probably really doesn't fit, especially within the context of your data; c) you're going to say something stupid. Do you know what you should have done/said? Now would be a great time to suggest further research. Or maybe you could've talked about how

In all the _____  words on this page [the article] (I've decided not to waste my time counting them), you have told me absolutely nothing of value.
And again, you cannot present someone's subjective opinion as indisputable fact. This is a MASSIVE error that you have carried throughout your entire "argument." Again, better luck next time. Trying to pass this off as legitimate? Are you kidding me? [sigh]


I seriously wish I could find my intro... It's around here somewhere, I just need to remember which hard drive it's on... Not bad for an undergrad.

"Hypocrisy: If they’re a Terrorist, you’re a Racist "-- By Storyteller Knight

All Catholic priests are rapists.
All members of the Tea Party are violent racists.
All Southern Conservative Christians are too dumb to tie their own shoes.

I can hear you all yelling at me right now. Yes, I know that it is wrong and unfair to blame an entire group of people for the abhorrent actions of a few. I find the above words to be disgusting and anyone who utters them to be ignorant and foolish. And yet, if we know that you shouldn’t associate and blame the actions of a few on a whole group, why does this statement, this mindset continue to be okay?

All Muslims are terrorists.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? If it isn’t okay to blame the entire Tea Party for the few members who’ve attacked members of Congress or yelled racial slurs at them, then it isn’t okay to blame the entire Islam religion for 9/11. That was a violent extremist group, no different from the members of the Tea Party who severed the gas line at Bo Perriello’s house. And if you, non-violent Tea Party member, do not wish to be associated with the psychopath who did that, you don’t get to call all Muslims terrorists or blame the entire religion for 9/11. Because if you do that, I feel that is perfectly within my rights to blame you for the attempted murder of an innocent man and his family and call you a racist. You can’t have it both ways. YOU CAN’T!

I’m sick and tired of this mentality that if a white man does something wrong, it’s an isolated incident of one psychopathic screwball and we shouldn’t blame all white men for what that one dude did. But if someone not-white does something wrong, it’s on that entire race or religion or sex/gender/orientation. It’s never just an isolated incident when the offender is not-white. It’s an epidemic. A problem we need harsher laws or new programs to try and correct or prevent.

So, with that in mind, I have to ask. Because one of the arguments that I’ve heard thrown out during the debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque” (which is actually more of a community center and two blocks away from Ground Zero, but whatever), is that the land around Ground Zero is Holy Ground. If a white guy wanted to build a strip club within a two block radius of Ground Zero, do you honestly believe it would have created the giant conflict this Mosque/Community center has caused? This is hallowed ground, after all. An area that is owed the utmost respect and highest honor from each person in America. Do you think Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin or Professor Glenn Beck would have rushed to rally the masses against such an establishment going on such hallowed ground?

Please.

As morally gray many Christians, especially conservatives Christians, find strip clubs, I haven’t heard mention from those who oppose the Park 51 project the ones that already exist within that two block radius. I’m sorry, but can you really refer to that two block radius as hallowed ground if no effort has really been made in the past decade to turn it into a more respectful, reverent community? But let’s just admit that it’s not really about the hallowed ground. Let’s just admit that the conflict over Park 51 has nothing to do with honoring Ground Zero and everything to do with what the white man thinks is okay. And strip clubs are in and a Mosque/Community Center is not. And this is not okay.


-- Storyteller Knight

And Now, for Something Completely Different... But not really. Pictures!

Every week I like to check out this gallery of the top political cartoons. Some are eh, but others... hilarious. Thought today maybe I'd share a few, maybe comment every now and then, just to mix things up. (And if I'm not horribly mistaken, clicking on the picture should enlarge it... maybe.)

Remember way back when I was joking about splitting the US down the middle and we each take a side? If you haven't noticed yet, in the bottom corner it says "I didn't notice anyone trying to sneak across." And you wouldn't! Maybe we'd be sitting on the fence, as I would from time to time... Mostly to see what's going on on the other side, I suppose. But just think how different each side would be... And yet, how similar. We're all human. We're all Americans. We do what we do because we love our country despite it's problems, and we want to see it flourish. We all have the same problems, just different ways of solving them.... And I see a social experiment coming on... Think the APA review board would let me get away with it??? I'm totally serious :-D
And obviously this whole border with Mexico thing too has people pretty divided (regarding immigrants crossing over it, I mean... Though frankly, and I know this wouldn't sit well with many Mexicans, I wonder if we could work out some sort of deal that kind of combines us in some way... After all, technically speaking the we're the ones who invaded Mexico by annexing Texas. Texas had claimed independence from Mexico, but they were the only ones who believed that... [Texans had an annoying habit of seceding from whatever country they belonged to. So I say let's just let them be independent & see how that works out. Good luck.] Then the Texans decided they didn't like the boundaries, & claimed that the borders included land & a river that they absolutely did not, including huge parts of (what became) 3 other states. (There's all this junk about saving Texas from a Mexican invasion, but it's not invading when it's yours, so...) Polk was an idiot who thought it would be a good idea to steal Texas, thereby declaring war on Mexico (even though Mexico flat out told him to butt out), stealing the land, killing everyone in the area. Somewhere in this Cali declared independence from Mexico, The Americas forced whoever was alive to sign a treaty (somehow I don't think gunpoint counts...) giving them and called it a day. To put it simply, the US invaded Mexico, stole their land, and made them give us more. All the future war heroes were there - Grant, Lee (another idiot... He didn't like them, but I miss the old Radical Republicans, back when Republicans stood for civil/human rights... So much nicer than our modern ones, IMO...), Stonewall... We eventually gave Mexico a few million dollars to shut them up (despite the fact that the land they gave up was worth far more than that - Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Cali, New Mexico, Texas-- and we shoved them back to the Rio Grande. The southern border of the US is all stolen property... I couldn't blame them if they started shouting "Take Our Country Back!" like those silly tea party signs. At least then it'd make some sense. Speaking of which...

Even though we've seen a drop in private hiring, and a surge in government hiring due to the census, we're still in a MUCH better situation than we were before... And I've seen recent evidence that this was not due to the "natural" ebb and flow of the market, but had a huge boost from the stimulus bills-- and as a result (as most provisions are about to expire), we're going to see a drop this summer... Housing is down, construction is down, wages went up a smidge but private sales aren't going up anymore, so... There's a bit of a hiring freeze. Unemployment will take a hit once the census people are done (though I'm thinking a lot of them are probably around my age, since that's a huge hiring target group for that type of job). Teachers are going to see a plunge as well, I'm sure. But despite all of this hardship, and the fact that the country is breaking down on the political front so to speak, things are still better than they used to be... We are still progressing, as slow as the process may be.

This one's a bit older, I believe... And kind of creeps me out, because I was in some forum a few weeks ago and a few cops were there talking about this exact thing and how they do actually have a scale (these particular cops, not all cops in general)...(Granted, in November I had spent a little too much time following related conversations on Stormfront -- a "white nationalist/supremacist & neo-Nazi/KKK" site-- & the Nation of Islam - a "black supremacist/separatist/nationalist" website for a Social Theory paper on hate groups. Scariest 3 hours of my life. I'd like to not run into these kinds of people IRL. One group from one of the sites would call me names & try to kill me, the other would call me names & probably let me live but kill someone while dragging me around with them, & I'd really rather not ever get involved... Ack. Instead of writing my paper, I instead wrote a list/article about why both were absolutely insane. [One group had 2,000 members join immediately after Obama won, which crashed the server. They panicked that the "white rule" was going to end - their words, not mine. Even Fox's "Papa Bear O'Reilly" called them out on their hateful spamming of his polls. The other group is basically the same, except they're also much more homophobic, & most of their hateful speech is offline and their skin tone is a bit darker. Both groups pretty much worship Hitler and blame the Jews for ruining the world... so... ye-a... Fucked up.] That part was fun, but writing my paper at 5 am before class wasn't so much...)

"100% Natural, for that Naturalized U.S. Citizen Look. Protects Against Police Harassment"-- Someone needs to give this to Boehner, 'cuz he doesn't even look human anymore... Most humans aren't naturally orange.

Hmm... Lesser of 2 evils?

Now this one is just too true...

Someone on FB/Care2 suggested plugging the leak with Beck & Palin so they'd be useful for something other than humor, but Limbaugh's mouth is just too big... (Plus I think that probably counts as physical violence, so I can't condone it...) But the good news is, recent attempts have been working to at least lessen the flow and contain some of the oil... Once we get it stopped, we can get to cleaning up (trying to see if somehow GP or Environment America would sponsor a trip down there... I think I could take off from work, I just don't know about plane tickets, HAZMAT suits or sleeping arrangements...) Also, while it's wonderful that so many organizations and businesses are chipping in hundreds of thousands of dollars towards cleanup costs, BP MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY DAMN PENNY!!! ^^" Sorry for yelling. (Poor Australia, too, lol. They keep looking forward to Obama's visit, & he keeps canceling at the last minute to fix massive problems here and get shit done...)

Another friend was talking about how other countries and indigenous peoples are forced to abide by the boundaries set by European invaders. (Reminds me of that whole "might makes right" argument. Right and wrong are determined by whoever is currently in power, the strongest and loudest are the ones who will make the rules, etc... The strongest bully determines the legitimacy of everything...) I really want to quote this all, but if my ping.fm post ever shows up you can read it all for yourself... (But until then, here's the link to the article - Arizona One-Ups Itself: Public School Has Black, Hispanic Faces On Mural Changed to White « SpeakEasy. Look for BulletProofAir's comments. Article is sad, but the comments are lovely if you ignore the stuff about old people. I think they meant our grandparents, whatever category they fall into and not Baby Boomers (our parents) or even Gen X (today's young parents). Funny though that kids born after mid-1990s are Generation Z, the "New Silent Generation." We're breeding media-obsessed introverts... How weird is that? P.S. - What happens after them anyway --after generation Z??... Oh... Wikipedia says our kids will probably called Alpha.) What was I talking about again? lol...

[UPDATE- Principal apologizes, admits mistake, plans to go back to how it was. ]

So... let's try one last pic, cuz I'm getting bored...

I assume most people have heard about what's happening to text books...again. This happens every once in a while. I can't remember exactly when the last time was, but I remember talking about it in school when I was about 11 or 12... and again in high school. California is boycotting the textbooks. I believe every state should. Private schools can do what they want-- that's their prerogative. Christianity and it's "family values" have had a massive effect on history, but this is just overstepping boundaries. History is always rewritten to suit society, but a small minority should not dictate everything.

You should see what Fox wrote on this. (I'm not going to show you, it's just too embarrassing... for them. At least, it should be. I also just skimmed the list of articles on the page... So sad, really. I think some of their writers are in denial...) Though I trust PBS and college students  far more then I'll ever trust Fox again. I know that HuffPost may have wildly exaggerated some claims, but I found one blogger's play by play of the radio broadcast of the meeting, and a neutral college student's list of the biggest changes, as well as several other neutral sources including Politifact (which claims that some of the really-liberal sites' extreme accusations are half-true). (Even found a conservative Texas education site that refutes Fox's ludicrous claims... What a nice find... Though Fox wasn't entirely off on one point - these textbooks could verily end up anywhere in the country. It does depend on individual states, as the agency says, but that doesn't invalidate Fox's claim. So hey, Fox finally got something right!) While I think some of the changes could be great if the publishers could manage to be non-partisan about it ( for example, discussing the pros and cons of government regulation), others are so blatantly biased that it's actually offensive. Like how publishers now have to stress how awesome capitalism is compared to socialism/communism (which, btw, are NOT the same thing). Like taking out how race/ethnicities, religions, and genders have shaped society and history-- right there you're already taking out the history of music, which is HUGELY tied into so much of history... Women's rights, including suffrage, careers, and marriage... Gay rights, the Civil Rights Movement... Hell, we can even go waaay back to the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening which led to the abolitionist movement! The Quakers too! How can you downplay that or cut it out? Also, I fail to see how they plan to take religion out while promoting "Christian values and the influence of Christianity on our Founding Fathers"? We as a "nation" (for lack of a better word at the moment) began as a group of settlers seeking religious freedom. Granted the whole witch hunt thing kind of fucked that up, and the pushy religious people who insisted on converting everyone to "save them from hell" kind of fucked that up a bit too, but the whole point was that the ideology of certain religious groups was not supposed to be forced on anyone, and a person should be allowed to believe in whatever he or she wants. Again, I'm not saying that religion isn't a huge part of our history, and that Christianity hasn't had an effect. But it's not the only religion that's influenced us, and I believe it's modern ideology and corresponding political agenda do not even remotely resemble the influences or teachings of our Deist Founding Fathers. In fact, Deism conflicts with most of Christian teachings... (google it.) Plus back then, the vast majority of those religious movements served as a progressive, liberal force for good, helping to free cultural groups from unfair social restraints. (Remember, the current group is only considered "conservative" in present times because it seeks to maintain or preserve how things were...) I also love how anti-miscegenation laws for "Caucasians and Mongolians," and the Oriental Exclusion Law, etc are being written off as not being racist towards Japanese people during the internment camp period of WWII... Because "Italians and Germans were there too!" Yes, that should absolutely be mentioned. It's not something we really learned much about in school growing up. I'm learning more about it as I type this and research... But I wouldn't exactly market it as proof that internment had nothing to do with racism. The Japanese were the first to go, for the aforementioned reasons. FDR and the newspapers said some pretty nasty things about Japanese-Americans, but I can't find anything about the Italians from that period... The German-Americans had a bad rep of course, and apparently 10-15% had a Nazi affiliation so it's hard to be surprised that people were freaked out and angry. But for the most part, they and the Italian-Americans were just "enemy aliens." (Not to mention the fact that even with anti-Italian sentiment back then, a lot of people regarded Italians and Germans as Caucasian and not a minority "race" as they are of European descent, so...) The Japanese were the only ones to have racial epithets added to the "war crime" of being of the same ethnicity as the enemy.

And now for something completely different. Since I sort of changed topic. On a completely hilarious note, apparently some extremist conservatives started freaking out that Christmas and the Constitution were going to be written out of textbooks... Best April Fool's joke ever? lol... (Followed by some crap about how liberals hate America and the Constitution -_-" Seriously, what the hell are these people on??) And guess who started those rumors? Turns out to be the very same Fox anchor from above ^, Gretchen Carlson-- the one with the ludicrous claims. Turns out those claims weren't even the crazy ones... And like a true Fox-er, she didn't bother to say anything when someone proved that she was wrong.

From Politifact.org -
Addressing Jason Moore, a Texas parent who planned to speak at Wednesday's hearing, Carlson said: "So, one of the proposed changes, Jason, is actually to start history class in the year 1877, which would be a big problem for a lot of people, would it not? And eliminate references to certain holidays, Founding Fathers, the Constitution! I mean, no surprise that Christmas, they want to get rid of that because they've been doing that for the last couple of years, but c'mon, the Constitution?"

Which brings us to today's moral - it's not technically a lie if you really believe it's true when you say it, but if you're going to stick with your story when you're proven to be wrong... (Speaking of which, great news - a lot of alarm bells can go away now, we finally have evidence that it was a huge misunderstanding that wasn't immediately rectified... If you don't know what I'm talking about, good for you.)

Alright, I'm sure if you're still reading you really must be bored today... (I was. I'm sure I've infected enough people today, so spent the rest of the day in my room alone, writing and playing video games... I have yet to see a doctor, but I know I have strep -_-" Ugh. There are some things sisters should never share, and an infection is certainly one of them.)

(All cartoons copyright of their respective artist and/or publication. I'm just using them here for "educational purposes," under Fair Use law or whatever it's called ^^")

Response to "Anonymous." I'll try to be nice, but I'm not making any promises.

"As I stated before, I find the idea of a person being illegal for not being born on a particular plot of land to be anti-human. And laws such as this one invariably promote division amongst people and fail to resolve the real underlying issue." --CG, from change.org, regarding SB1070.

I decided to make this a full post instead of just a comment, because I get the feeling that this will be quite long. This is a response to "Anonymous," who left a comment on my Memorial Day post. I know that the people who actually read any of this know perfectly well who "Anonymous" is, as well as all that's been going on lately, so I'm not going to bother with details. Also, before I start, I want to point out that people are not illegal, actions are made illegal by the imposition of laws. Alright, so here we go:

(Sigh) Something tells me I messed up my Facebook settings again... So let's see if I can do this without being a total bitch... (I assure you, the more I edit this, the more I fail at not being mean... So I'll try to be mature about this.)

Aside from the fact that my comments about "illegal immigrants" was about the racist sport of hunting them down like animals when they had done nothing wrong except exist in a country where we pretend that they have less of a right to be here than anyone else, I never said anything about private property (as everyone has a right to protect their home) nor did I make this a personal issue or attack as you so did me, so your rude, judgmental attitude is most unwelcome here. However in the fairness of free speech, you may have your say, and I mine.

So you're going to make the argument that because you've had squatters in your backyard that I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about or have an opinion? So you think that I've never interacted with illegal immigrants, talked to them, learned about them and why they're here, and because you have to get the cops to come chase a few lazy, drunk squatters off of your family's property you suddenly know all there is to know about illegal immigrants? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Please stop with the rude emotional outbursts, as they're not really working in your favor. You've got a lot of people, including some conservative friends, shaking their heads, over this and over your previous healthcare comments as well. (I'm not even going to mention you contacting me when I thought I had made it clear that it's not ok. We're adults now, and although you've proven yourself to behave quite immaturely, I can try to be relatively civil.) However I do wonder why for someone so against "socialism," or whatever you believe socialism is, you don't seem to have a problem with using taxpayer funded police officers to protect your private property...?

Anyway, I understand that you're upset, and I know how this has affected you over the years, and believe me, I do (or did) care, but I honestly believe that you need to calm down, since your overly emotional attacks are unwarranted and I know you're better than that. And I don't think you understand me either (but I think we both already knew that a long time ago...). Open my eyes? I have. You haven't... And I only say that because in the time that I've known you, or known of you, you have always stayed focused on what is in front of you, from only your own very-emotional, egotistical point of view; and because of that, I can say for a fact that you have missed a lot of facts that were really obvious to the rest of us... This issue is so much bigger than your backyard or the Shoprite strip mall, so I'm sorry that you are unable to judge this situation from the bigger picture.

As for your comment - You are not the only one who has had to deal with situations like that, and you  are certainly NOT the only one with "illegal" immigrants on their front lawn  (aside from the people who used to help our lawn guy with our landscaping. They were wonderful...) as you seem to imply. I live next to a park, remember? I (stupidly) wander around by myself at night in foreign countries.  I spend far too much time in sketchy areas with drunken guys with weapons. I've never been mugged, but only because I was lucky enough to recognize the danger in the situation and get out just in time. I'm lucky enough to have not been shot for the same exact reason - I made it out and around the corner in time. Yes, as a matter of fact I have been scared by drunken men popping out of no where around my house or apartment or dorm rooms or even on campus, brandishing weapons or various body parts. A friend and I were pretty much sexually assaulted in Scotland outside of a pub. (And I was, around a quiet Philly club, where apparently guys think it's ok to do these things, even when you say no and push them away multiple times...) We're lucky a security guard decided to wander by, after another girl from our group disappeared that night. I've woken up to drunken homeless people wandering around in my back yard, peering through my windows. I've had my home and bedroom broken into, possibly while I was still inside according to the police. Ask me how I slept after that. I've had people seriously threaten to kill me in my sleep. Ask me how I slept after that. Have I had the Old Bridge cops running through my house and back yard every so often, searching for criminals and drunk people? Yes. Yes I have. But I'm also lucky to have lived next door to the local fire chief, before he died, and I'm lucky enough to have fencing and an alarm system and sword and even some gun skills.

There are a lot of reasons why people come here illegally, and I'd bet you all the money in my bank accounts that squatting on your property or in the woods isn't even in the top 1000. One of those reasons the fact that it costs too much and takes too long for some people. Not everyone has the luxury of time, or money, or safety. Not everyone can afford to have a comfortable home, warm food, and the safety of a loving family, especially in war-torn or gang-ridden areas.

As usual, your response is based on your own limited personal encounters with a small group of  "the same guys," which unfortunately is quite limited indeed. And as you probably would have guessed, I'm going to go back to psychology on this one. You cannot possibly base an entire opinion of an entire group on a small group of people with whom you've interacted or encountered. That type of generalization is exactly how stereotypes and racism, and really any type of -ism, begin and spread. Extending your hatred for the squatters behind your house to all Mexican immigrants is not only racist but sexist and narrow-minded. It's about the same as saying that because many terrorists are Muslims, that all Muslims are extremist terrorists and should be arrested and banned from the country. It's also about the same as saying that all drunken men are out to harass and/or rape whoever they can, and about as silly as that whole "take our country back" bullshit. So I encourage you to please look at this situation from a view outside of your backyard., and perhaps you will notice that not all Mexicans or immigrants are drunks and squatters who hang out in the woods waiting for some innocent woman to prey on. (I could go on about confirmation bias and outgroup homogeneity, but I have better thins to do with my time than drag this argument out longer than it needs to be. Which I guess I did anyway, instead of leaving it to "you're acting like an idiot" as one person suggested.) Yes, actually it IS that philosophical, if you take it out into the real world, outside of your yard. That whole "This land is your land, this land is my land" wasn't meant to be taken literally. You said- "Some have been caught before and they are in fact illegal immigrants from Mexico; it's not racist either." Ok, so you're saying that because those particular people were illegal immigrants from Mexico, legislation targeting immigrants "in general" but primarily affects Hispanic people regardless of actual citizenship status isn't racist? Or the fact that because these people were in fact illegal immigrants from Mexico, it's not racist to complain about all illegal immigrants from Mexico in general being drunken squatters out to harass and rape you? Sorry, but I really don't see where you were going with that. Yes, those particular people do not belong on your land, and you have every right to make them leave, but that's no reason to demonize an entire group over it. You said it yourself, it's the same guys every time. Clearly, there's a problem with those same guys, not illegal immigrants from Mexico in general.

This isn't about taking sides. The whole in-group/out-group us vs. them mentality is rather childish and immature, IMO, especially regarding this situation. Your family immigrated here too, from Poland, didn't they? They, like many of the current immigrants, purchased land or a house and found work. You should know just as well as I do what it's like to be judged, stereotyped, and put down just because of your ethnicity or race. I know we've talked about that before. Your land is just that, the plot of land your family owns, not public land. Why should I care if they are on PUBLIC property?? Your land is not this entire country, which technically as a whole is considered public property. This "land" we call the United States is not the same type of ownership as your family's. A country is not the same as a house, or a backyard. We are a collective, made up of immigrants and native peoples, living on land stolen from natives and other groups, including the Mexicans. You have a right to keep people off of your family's land, but you have no right to tell people that they can't come into this country. Technically, none of us do. I do believe that we should have border security (hint hint.), simply because the times call for it and we should be able to live without fear, but that doesn't mean I can or should condone people complaining that everyone else in the world is dangerous and that the only way to protect themselves from the evil outsiders is to round them up and demonize them.

If you had read any further back, you would have known that I have been quite hesitant to call the actual Arizona bill racist, but said that it has implications for racial profiling and encouraging racist attitudes and actions, even with the revisions. (Not to mention that it's been done before, and it was considered horrifically racist back then, when racism was still allowed to be overt and and publicly institutionalized.) And you said it yourself- the majority of immigrants in that area are likely Mexican. The racism portion of this comes into play when the majority of people who are stopped and arrested due to this legislation are chosen because of how they look, because they're Hispanic, regardless of whether or not they are actually Mexican, or even whether or not they are citizens. Hispanic, American-born citizens have been harassed, arrested, and even deported already thanks to this law and previous legislature in Arizona, so it's impossible to say this won't affect legal citizens. Blond-haired blue eyed Swedes are not likely to be stopped. Canadians aren't going to be stopped. The undercurrent of social thought is that this bill will be primarily targeting Hispanics and Latinos, as they are considered to be the primary "threat."

It would seem that over the years it's like I've become your own personal therapist, so I apologize if it annoys you as much as it annoys me. But please, as someone who used to call herself your best friend, seriously... There are a lot of things you probably still haven't noticed about yourself, but you seriously have a lot of issues that you need to deal with, including getting out of your little "bubble of me." It's REALLY annoying and (as a good friend has also noticed) has completely exhausted my patience. I've put up with a lot from you over all of this time, and you've said a lot of really rude, racist, and hurtful things to my family and my friends, and I'm seriously done. Please, do us both a favor and just go. Whoops, I guess I slipped and said how I really feel.


It's times like this when I can truly appreciate the cultural and ethnic diversity of my home and family. Tonight, we're making homemade empanadas. Sometimes we make Chinese, sometimes Italian, sometimes my mother's childhood Indian and Guyanese favorites... And not only the food, but the meanings behind it, and embracing differences, are a part of who we are. We were taught to always appreciate and judge only by character and actions, not where someone comes from or how they or their family got here. Many of the "illegal immigrants" I've met and known are the (not some of, but THE) kindest and hardest working people I know, and are so much more than their legal status. And they deserved to be judged for who they are as human beings and not by the racist stereotypes and over-generalizations of the American right-wing... So what good am I doing? What I can. Reaching out. Speaking out. Informing, mobilizing, discussing, donating, writing, joining and sharing. Accepting, and loving, and learning. What are you doing, other than hating and tea parties? (Hmm, that seems just a bit redundant...) Live and let live. I won't bother you if you won't bother me.

P.S. - And I should care because...? I'm serious too. And it's not your land, it belongs to your grandmother and parents. But have fun with your dirt anyway. I'm not the one who needs to shut the fuck up here, as  I'm not the troll here. This is my blog and you don't have to read it if you don't want to. Whoops, slipped again.