Ramble Rumble

the millennial problem:

gyzym:

two millennials are barreling towards adulthood at 95 miles per hour. one of them has been coated with the most extravagant paint money can buy, but their steering apparatus is locked up until that coat’s paid off; the other’s brakes have been ripped out mid-trip, the thief yelling, “what, did you think you were entitled to these?” over their shoulder. half the tracks have been torn away to build second, third, and fifth garages for trains that are no longer running. solve for x. 

tell me again how the song goes — i’m so inadequate i might forget. if we’re not informed enough then we’re apathetic morons, but if we’re too informed we’re oversensitive reactionaries; if we think we deserve more then we’re narcissistic cutthroats, but if we’re happy where we are then we’re passionless layabouts. if we’re making money then we’re materialistic automatons who only care about stuff and don’t value the important things in life, but if we’re broke then we’re disgusting, spoiled children who expect everything in life to be a handout. if we spend too much time with technology then we’re antisocial, soulless zombies who spell the end for human interaction as we know it, but if we spend too much time together we’re a dangerous, unstable element who should get real jobs already. we’re a disgrace; we’re a embarrassment; we’re a mistake; we’re a disappointment; we’re not what you wanted, however you slice it, and all of it’s our fault, right? right? oh, god, am i getting the melody wrong?

here’s what i propose, everyone who wants to open their twenty-four-hour news cycles or their pork-barrel mouths, who wants to use their filthy fucking hands to tear this generation a new one: you try it. you come up with a picture of the generation you seem to want: one that’s neither apathetic nor engaged, one that’s neither ambitious nor content, one that’s neither rich nor poor, one that’s neither technologically connected nor interpersonally involved. don’t forget to factor in the variables — the years of economic instability; the globalization of everything from communication to art; the hugely stratified individual experiences we’ve had based on things like race, sexuality, gender, and socioeconomics, on things that come with whole histories of systemic bullshit; the overwhelming burden of student debt that so many of us face; the fact that hindsight is 20/20. you write the formula for the millennial that will shut you the fuck up about all the things we should be and aren’t, about all the ways we’ve failed you, and then you bring it to me. i promise you, i will try it. anything for a little peace and quiet, right? anything to stop hearing it everywhere i go: that voice saying that, at twenty-three, i might already have flunked out of life. 

(both millennials crash, spectacularly and yelling for help, into the station that never built a platform for them to pull into. onlookers stand by and shake their heads, wondering about the deplorable state of trains today. that’s what happens when nobody does the fucking math.) 

# bam millenials idk how to tag this? rights

Reblogged 4 days ago from gyzym 5,064 notes
A key feature of sexism, as with oppression against any group, is that there is an institutionalized power differential between the oppressor group (men in the case of sexism) and the oppressed group (in sexism, women). Oppression is popularly described by the formula: oppression = prejudice + power. Though oversimplified, this formula corrects the often mistaken belief that prejudice by itself is oppressive, giving rise to misinformed notions such as “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism.”

While individual women or women as a whole may enact prejudicial biases toward specific men or toward men as a group, this is done so without the backing of a societal system of institutional power. If all U.S. presidents were women, if our economic and political infrastructures were run predominately by women, and if men’s shelters were required to protect men from widespread abuse by their female partners, perhaps “reverse sexism” would have the required institutional power to make it a meaningful phrase.

— The Fabric of Internalized Sexism, Journal of Integrated Social Sciences (2009)

(Source: ellesugars)

# feminism isms rights oppression

Reblogged 2 weeks ago from celeryandhummus (Originally from ellesugars) 1,666 notes
When a fan says ‘I really, really want Swan Queen to become canon because they’re two strong, dynamic, beautiful women who have an important role on their show and I think it’s about time that the morals of fairytales expanded to include same-sex couples in their definition of True Love, too’, they don’t want to hear that it’s not going to happen because it would be too weird. Because that is the very thing that they are hoping to discourage. ‘Oh you crazy people, you don’t really think they’ll let your gay delusions come true, do you? This isn’t a show about being gay, ergo, there shouldn’t be anything gay on it, because homosexuality is not normal’. When people argue that a show will never make a character pursue a same-sex romance because they do not fit a queer stereotype, or because it’s a family show, or because the character is too important – that is the point. We have gay stereotypes in our media. We have risqué shows about the drama of being LGB. But we have very, very few shows where someone can just be queer and be themselves and do other things that do not revolve around their sexuality. We have very few stories where queer people are just people who happen to be queer, and therein lies the appeal of taking a character who is not initially presented that way and then allow them to explore a same-sex relationship. Because if Dean Winchester hooks up with Castiel, the show is still going to be about fighting monsters. The idea is not to turn Supernatural into Queer as Folk; the idea is to have Supernatural be Supernatural, and let some of the characters be not straight on it at the same time.

— Shipping, Othering, and Heteronormativity by sharbi (via sassygayangel)

# rights queer stuff representation heteronormativity

Reblogged 2 months ago from theappleppielifestyle (Originally from sassygayangel) 4,966 notes

Listen,

It does not matter what you say. As a woman, as a woman of color, as a woman of size, as a woman with large breasts or no breasts and a lifetime of experience with bucketloads of passion. It does not fucking matter.*

Because unless there is a white guy backing you up, you are an angry bitch. Uppity, spirited, “that girl,” the femanazi, the super-libber, the PC chick, the conspiracy theorist…

I just wish my own experiences were enough. That the experiences of fellow women were enough. But we must always come with backers. We must always have a few men nodding along behind us in the crowd. And at the very least if we’re going to be so bold as to bring up racism or sexism in polite company then we better be willing to quote reputable studies that have been widely recognized by the psychological and sociological communities.

If we lack this armor we are just drama. Dramatic or… wait for it… psycho bitches who think everybody is out to rape them or thinks they must be, “Like, soooo attractive to be hit on so much and totally, probably, like, thinks like a victim.”

This is so dangerous because I believe it teaches us not to trust our own judgments. Sadly, in this world, that can be life or death. When that guy hits on you for the third time at the club we should just get over it. He wasn’t being that creepy. “Oh no, girl, don’t talk to the bouncer about him, that’s just drama. Just have a good time.” I complained anyway but nothing was done.

And hey, when he tries to attack you while leaving the club—which happened to me and a friend in June of this year—the police may ask you why you didn’t complain “more than once” to security. I shit you not.

Because it is never good enough. It’s always a teachable moment from man to woman. So listen up, child, because that’s exactly what you are. At least until a white man comes to back up your claims. But I don’t have to tell you that. You already know. The trick is for this argument not to be dismissed outright by some dude in a Quicksilver t-shirt because the fact is, he has final say on the veracity of our claims.

—

via PersephoneMagazine

: soydulcedeleche  :.

(via resmc)

# feminism sexism patriarchy rights don't be such a sour queue

Reblogged 3 months ago from stfuconservatives (Originally from bad-dominicana) 6,431 notes

Woman Pays for Reporting a Rape →

randomstabbing:

In 2008, an 18-year-old woman in Washington State reported to police that she had been sexually assaulted. But they didn’t believe her. Lynnwood Police Chief Steve Jensen said that her story changed, her details were inconsistent and that people who knew the victim expressed doubts about her story.

So the police charged her with false reporting, and she pleaded guilty under a deal that included a fine of $500. The charge remains on her record.

Three years later, Marc O’Leary was arrested in Colorado for charges of sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary and felony menacing. He is being held on $5 million bail. When the police raided O’Leary’s home earlier this month, they found photos of his victims.

The 18-year-old woman from Washington was in those photographs.

# feminism rights rape culture tw: rape don't be such a sour queue

Reblogged 4 months ago from myveryownurlolz (Originally from randomstabbing) 9,008 notes