Bi-Trans Activist in answer to yet another self-styled "LGBT" group insisting that Gay Men and Lesbian Women have both the right to dictate what it means to be Bisexual and the right to disregard what the actual Bisexual Community historically says it is. (via bialogue-group)
Credit where credit is due! I do believe it was nooffswitch!(via bidyke)
holy fucking shit i just
that last line
The bookstore in my town has a racism section in honor of Ferguson and it gives me a lot of hope#JusticeforMikeBrown, #ArrestDarrenWilson, #BlackLivesMatter, #Ferguson
In case you’ve been under a rock this past week, here’s a rundown of something that has people on twitter buzzing:
On Friday, YA author Kathleen Hale published an article via The Guardian, entitled Am I Being Catfished (spoiler alert: no). Here is the article via a channel that won’t provide hits to the article itself: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?565129
In the article, Kathleen opens by saying that she received a negative review from a goodreads blogger. In case you’re pretty committed to life under that rock, negative reviews are pretty standard in an author’s career. Think of it as the first time a toddler faceplants. It sucks, we cringe, the kid gets back up and still has a reasonably good life. The review was really more of a series of status updates as the reviewer read and reacted in real time. What was said in those updates is of little importance. All you really need to know is that the review was completely about the work itself, was presented as 100% opinion, and did not make comment about the author or the author’s life in any way. In other words, a standard 1-star review.
The book community is a social one. When we love books, when we dislike books, when we cannot finish books, we talk about them. Readers, writers, and reviewers exist in a self-contained bubble of like-mindedness, and strive to create a safe place to share what we all have in common: books. So naturally, this goodreads reviewer shared her 1-star opinion with her friends. Let me emphasize again that the opinion was strictly about the book and had nothing to do with the author on a personal level.
Except Kathleen Hale did take it personally. So personally, in fact, that she spent months analyzing the situation. She closely monitored this reviewer’s instagram, facebook, and twitter, in addition to her other reviews. While this reviewer had presumably put this book out of her mind and gone on with her life, Kathleen google image searched her photos, and perused her facebook friends, and analyzed the photos of this blogger’s house.
When an opportunity to provide review books arose, Kathleen Hale found a way to acquire the reviewer’s address under the false pretense of sending signed books for reviews and giveaways. What she really did was rented a car and drove to the reviewer’s house. After that, she calls the reviewer at work, pretending to be taking a census type survey, in another attempt to gain information about this reviewer’s private life.
In her very lengthy Guardian article, Kathleen Hale justifies her behavior by insisting that the reviewer blogged under a pseudonym. In the online community, this is pretty standard, and it’s because of people like Kathleen Hale that many people lie about their real identities. Nonetheless, for whatever reason, much of the reviewer’s online persona appeared to be false, and so Kathleen used this as a platform to justify her obsession, putting on a sleuth hat when in fact all of this was a simple case of an author driving to a reviewer’s house for no reason at all other than that she didn’t like the review left for her.
She drove to her house. She called her at work. Multiple times. And then, at the end of all this, she posted a very detailed account of this horror show for The Guardian, with a cute title image and many giggles and winks to her neurotic quirks.
The reviewer, for her part, had merely posted a review of a book.
In the days that followed the article, I have seen plenty of people hoisting Kathleen Hale on their shoulders as a sort of vigilante against cyber bullying. All of these people are presumably pasting their own personal bullies’ faces over the blogger’s, and seem to have lost focus of reality, which is that the blogger merely expressed an opinion. The blogger was one person, on the internet, reviewing a book she did not like.
In an earlier post by Kathleen Hale, she blogs about her own mother allegedly molesting a child. Kathleen’s reaction was to follow that child into a movie theater, call her fat, dump peroxide on her head, and run away laughing. Her mother, over several glasses of wine, thanked her for this. Kathleen then spent several years stalking this child online. But I really can’t do the article justice. You can read Kathleen’s own blog about the event here: http://thoughtcatalog.com/kathleen-hale/2013/02/169836/ She seems proud of this action to this day, calling it revenge.
This is the person you’re enabling with your praise. This is the person you’re hailing as a hero.
And whether you review books or not, you have undoubtedly, at one point or another, shared an opinion on the internet. Maybe you don’t review books. Maybe you talk politics. Maybe you hate Taylor’s newest song. Maybe you’re just really fricking sick of Someone Like You. And for every one thing you dislike, there are thousands, if not millions, of people on that same social media outlet who like it. This blogger disliked a review and said as much in a benign way to her friends on a site designed for sharing opinions about books. The author showed up to her house. People clapped. Tomorrow, you’ll dislike a song, or the finale of a TV show, and you’ll say as much. What will happen to you then? Kathleen Hale is not the only Kathleen Hale out there. There are thousands of them. Millions. Unstable, predatory people who take it just too far, who spend months fixated on a stranger who exists to them only in photos or status updates. It cannot be predicted what will set these types of people off, but if we expect to be safe ourselves, we need to stand up for the opinions of others as if they are our own. Because if one opinion is unsafe, if one person “deserved it” then we all do, because we have more in common with that reviewer than we do with the person who showed up at her house.
Think of that the next time you click “post.”
This is honestly the best poster I have found in a while supporting breast cancer awareness. I am honestly so sick of seeing, “set the tatas free” and “save the boobies”. There is no reason in hell a life threatening, life ruining disease should be sexualized. “Don’t wear a bra day,” go fuck yourselves. You’re not saving a pair of tits, you’re saving the entire package: mind, body, and soul included. Women are not just a pair of breasts.
Someone walks over to our step to say hello. She bends at the waist, looming over Brooke.
Brooke doesn’t look up. She doesn’t stop stripping her stick.
Dig. Pull. Dig. Pull.
Our visitor reaches out a hand and cups it below Brooke’s chin.
I freeze. Oh God.
She uses the hand to pull Brooke’s head up by the jaw.
A thin line of panic starts somewhere deep. I know that Brooke is going to scream. 5,4,3,2 …
She does scream, but not in the way that I expect.
“I HATE BEING TOUCHED!!” she shouts.
I am flabbergasted.
Words. Self-awareness. Communication. Self-advocacy.
I know the sentence will need to be reformatted. But I am drenched in pride.
I turn to Brooke. “Great job telling us how you feel, Brooke. Really great job.” I hope that my words send a message to both of them. I stand with my girl.
Our visitor is undaunted.
“I just want to see that beautiful face,” she says. “Lift up for me.”
I am stymied by etiquette. By deference to our host. By generational difference. By convention.
Brooke is not.
She lifts her head as instructed. And growls."
This has probably been posted before, but this knocks me for a loop - a blogger and her autistic daughter had the opportunity to meet Suzanne Wright of Autism Speaks, and this is how one of the noisiest voice in the autism community treated her daughter.
What knocks me for a loop isn’t so much Wright’s awful behavior. It’s the unbelievable strength and self-advocacy that the blogger Jess’s daughter, Brooke, shows when someone violates her personal space. It’s her mother backing her up for making sure someone knows that they are not permitted to touch her unless she says it’s okay. Honestly, it’s heartening. I hope Wright felt real fucking uncomfortable. She should.
Oct. 20 3:15 pm
- At least 5 Ferguson officers apart from Darren Wilson have been named in lawsuits
- Ferguson police accused of assaulting children
- Shaun King has 15 questions for Darren Wilson (storify)
- Ferguson protesters brace for no indictment
- Is it legal for the police to shoot an unarmed, surrendered citizen?
- Black teens are 21 times more likely to be shot by cops than white teens
- The Big List of Ferguson Live Streams
Matt Stone and Trey Parker have done more to make our generation crueler than nearly anyone else, because they can get away with it under the guise of “this is satire, duh”, not realizing that poorly-done satire only reinforces the cultural forces it is meant to mock. When 13 year-old-kids are watching South Park, they aren’t tuning in to the little infinitesimally small lessons supposedly being taught, they’re laughing at Timmy being severely disabled, they’re laughing at sexual harassment, they’re laughing at child abuse, they’re laughing at anti-semitism, they’re laughing at people who have had sex reassignment surgery.
And the “satire” is so often pathetically weak. There isn’t a single nativist in this entire country who can’t laugh at a “der takin er jerbs” joke, because those jokes don’t actually rebut or mock the arguments made by people opposed to immigration. It’s just saying a common political phrase in a funny voice. Is that how low the bar for “satire” has been set? There’s occasionally more effective satire on the show, but not nearly enough for it to be defended on the basis of its value as satire.
But if you try to explain any of this to die-hard South Park fans, they’ll completely blow it off. They think that the fact the show upsets me simply means that the show has accomplished its purpose, never actually questioning whether or not that purpose is a worthy one. That’s why the show is so insidious: it wraps itself in this cynical layer of self-containment that prevents it from ever being pointed out for what it is: a detriment to the type of society that any decent person wants to see. South Park is far more dangerous than the Westboro Baptist Church, because South Park is something that people accept and defend.
Setting boundaries/self preservation <3
CASUAL REMINDER THAT LATINA WOMEN ARE THE MOST UNDERPAID OUT OF BOTH GENDER AND RACE
now imagine if they’re non-hetero, trans or disabled
A List of Resources for Teens Experiencing Medical Neglect
This is a follow-up to this earlier post about what medical neglect is http://fibrofrog.tumblr.com/post/94045354531
The following resources are taken from http://leavingabuse.com/domestic_abuse/family-abuse-and-teenagers.html
- If you are in the US, you can contact Childhelp USA on 800-422-4453. Other sources of help include Prevent Child Abuse America (http://www.preventchildabuse.org) or call 312-663-3520 or there’s the National Domestic Violence/Abuse hotline ( http://www.ndvh.org and 800-799-SAFE.
- If you live in the UK, you can get in touch with Childline. This is an NSPCC charity dedicated to stopping and preventing child abuse of any sort. You can contact them in complete confidentiality. http://www.childline.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx or call 0800 1111.
- If you are in Canada, you can contact the Child Abuse Hotline on 1-800-4-A-CHILD.
- Worldwide: The Samaritans or Befrienders networks will also offer support and advice for young people who are trapped in abusive situations or who may be feeling depressed or suicidal. http://www.befrienders.org/
What medical neglect in the spectrum of child abuse is, and how to report it
taken from http://www.americanhumane.org/
Medical neglect is the failure to provide appropriate health care for a child (although financially able to do so), thus placing the child at risk of being seriously disabled or disfigured or dying. According to NCANDS, in 2005, 2 percent of children (17,637 children) in the United States were victims of medical neglect (USDHHS, 2007). Concern is warranted not only when a parent refuses medical care for a child in an emergency or for an acute illness, but also when a parent ignores medical recommendations for a child with a treatable chronic disease or disability, resulting in frequent hospitalizations or significant deterioration.
Even in non-emergency situations, medical neglect can result in poor overall health and compounded medical problems.
Parents may refuse medical care for their children for different reasons religious beliefs, fear or anxiety about a medical condition or treatment, or financial issues. Child protective services agencies generally will intervene when:
- Medical treatment is needed in an acute emergency (e.g., a child needs a blood transfusion to treat shock);
- A child with a life-threatening chronic disease is not receiving needed medical treatment (e.g., a child with diabetes is not receiving medication); or
- A child has a chronic disease that can cause disability or disfigurement if left untreated (e.g., a child with congenital cataracts needs surgery to prevent blindness).
In these cases, child protection services agencies may seek a court order for medical treatment to save the child’s life or prevent life-threatening injury, disability or disfigurement.
Although medical neglect is highly correlated with poverty, there is a distinction between a caregiver’s inability to provide the needed care based on cultural norms or the lack of financial resources and a caregiver’s knowing reluctance or refusal to provide care. Children and their families may be in need of services even though the parent may not be intentionally neglectful. When poverty limits a parent’s resources to adequately provide necessities for the child, services may be offered to help families provide for their children.
What Can You Do?
If you suspect child neglect is occurring, first report it to the local child protective services agency (often called “social services” or “human services”) in your county or state.
Professionals who work with children are required by law to report reasonable suspicion of abuse and neglect. Furthermore, in 20 states, citizens who suspect abuse or neglect are required to report it. “Reasonable suspicion” based on objective evidence, which could be firsthand observation or statements made by a parent or child, is all that is needed to report.
What Is NCANDS?
NCANDS, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, is the primary source of national information on abused and neglected children known to public child protective services agencies. American Humane has provided technical assistance to this project since its beginning in 1990. NCANDS reports that Child Maltreatment 2005 appears to have a large increase in overall data due to the fact that this edition is the first to include Alaska and Puerto Rico. For a copy of this report, contact the Child Welfare Information Gateway at (800) 394-3366 or http://www.childwelfare.gov/. The publication is also available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb.”
DEAR WHITE AND NON-BLACK FEMINISTS,
this symbol does not represent mainstream feminism
this is the symbol for black feminism, that black feminists have created and been using for decades to represent our struggle against anti-black misogyny, hence the combination of the black power fist and the symbol for womanhood.
so stop tattooing yourself with this symbol and selling overpriced patches and pins on etsy, you are appropriating and profiting off the work of black feminists. Work that we have dedicated our lives to create and sustain, even though we are constantly erased from history. Respect our community, respect our activism, and stop spreading false information that distorts our history.
Jeremy Knowles, discussing the complete lack of recognition Cecilia Payne gets, even today, for her revolutionary discovery. (via alliterate)
OH WAIT LEMME TELL YOU ABOUT CECILIA PAYNE.
Cecilia Payne’s mother refused to spend money on her college education, so she won a scholarship to Cambridge.
Cecilia Payne completed her studies, but Cambridge wouldn’t give her a degree because she was a woman, so she said fuck that and moved to the United States to work at Harvard.
Cecilia Payne was the first person ever to earn a Ph.D. in astronomy from Radcliffe College, with what Otto Strauve called “the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy.”
Not only did Cecilia Payne discover what the universe is made of, she also discovered what the sun is made of (Henry Norris Russell, a fellow astronomer, is usually given credit for discovering that the sun’s composition is different from the Earth’s, but he came to his conclusions four years later than Payne—after telling her not to publish).
Cecilia Payne is the reason we know basically anything about variable stars (stars whose brightness as seen from earth fluctuates). Literally every other study on variable stars is based on her work.
Cecilia Payne was the first woman to be promoted to full professor from within Harvard, and is often credited with breaking the glass ceiling for women in the Harvard science department and in astronomy, as well as inspiring entire generations of women to take up science.
Cecilia Payne is awesome and everyone should know her.
In addition to news articles pro-liberation posts will be featured in order to highlight their ideas.
For the well being of the admins, their identity remains private. However if for any reason you need to contact us, the message box is always open.