if I ever see a girl in public who is clearly going for something really bold with her look (crazy hair, makeup, outfit) and looks like she’s maybe uncomfortable or nervous about rocking it, I make sure to go up to her and tell her she looks fierce. It took a lot of courage to go out like that and somebody ought to notice.
changes lives. be sure to do that at least once a day.
While Johansson’s first Marvel appearance in Iron Man 2 may have relied somewhat upon sex appeal, this was quickly nixed in favor of characterizing her as the most cerebral Avenger. Her most important scenes in The Avengers relied upon her intelligence and skills as a spy, to the extent that she even managed to outwit Loki, the God of Lies. At the end of the movie, she’s the one who closes the portal that let all the aliens into New York. Then in Winter Soldier she’s given second billing to Captain America, a meaty role that showcases a wide-ranging skillset that stretches far beyond just “kicking ass.” At no point during any of these movies does she seduce anyone, by the way.
Sadly, there’s very little sign of this character in the most easily accessible reviews of both The Avengers and Winter Soldier. Judging by the Guardian, WSJ, or New Yorker, Black Widow is more like a blow-up doll with a black belt. By their logic, if she’s wearing a tight outfit, then she must be a sexy ass-kicker, meaning that she must be the token female character, and therefore is little more than eye candy.
With that thought process in mind, it must make perfect sense to relegate Black Widow to a single sniggering comment about her catsuit, because obviously Scarlett Johansson is just there for decoration. And if you’ve read in the New York Times that Black Widow is a token female character, then chances are you’ll have internalized that opinion before you even buy a ticket. The feedback loop of misogynist preconceptions continues on, and in the end, we all lose out.
I think cishet people get angry when they are labeled as cishet because they aren’t used to having to be labeled. They are shocked and upset that an increasing amount of people no longer refer to cishet people as “normal,” because those people have realized that no sexual orientation or gender identity is the supreme normal way to be.
“This is for the first time I heard the word, ‘heteronormative’ and felt like I was handed a corkscrew after years of opening the bottle with my teeth.”—Lauren Zuniga, Confessions of an Uneducated Queer [x] (via hurryuppleaseitstime)
When RuPaul and his supporters defend the use of the words “tr*nny” and “she-male,” it gives the power of those words to those who would “castrate or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us.” Defending those words is tacit permission to others to use those words as weapons, to openly manifest their hate, against people who lack the ability to fight back. We police words, because they have the power to drive us to despair when we live under an unending torrent of hate. …
The excuse that they’re reclaiming the language does not hold water: you can’t reclaim it while it’s still actively being used against you, and especially if the words are being used against some other group than your own. I can’t accept the excuse that policing language is somehow a greater moral wrong than the harm of that language on the people it is being used against.
RuPaul is not transgender, and does not define himself as such. Yet, he has decided that he can unilaterally dictate what language is offensive to transgender people, a group that isn’t his own. Imagine for a moment if one of the most popular and prominent members of the transgender community was encouraging straight people to use the word f*ggot when describing gay men. Imagine if they refused to step back from the use of this word. Would there be a similar debate?
It makes me so mad that Ru never actually apologized for offending the trans* community with slurs, but I am glad that Logo itself took action by removing some of the problems from the show. Still though, cmmon Ru get your shit together
why is "hate breeds more hate" a bad thing to say?
Oh so many reasons.
1) it equates the anger of the oppressed to the hate of their oppressors.
2) it blames oppressed groups for their oppression. Bigotry doesn’t exist because people hate bigots. It exists because oppressed people oppose it. It exists because of bigots and because of privileged folks being complicit or tacitly condoning systems of oppression.
3) it’s fundamentally untrue. Hatred of oppression doesn’t lead to more hatred; it leads to progress.
4) it is used to attack any attempt by oppressed people to obtain liberation. Point out that something or someone is repulsively racist and all of a sudden you’re “breeding more hate”.
It’s a fundamental misrepresentation of reality that blames victims and excuses fucked up behavior.
• “At least you’re not dying!” • “You’re only disabled if you let yourself be.” • “You need to tell yourself you’re going to get better, else you won’t.” • “But you can’t be in pain ALL the time, don’t exaggerate.” • “You don’t LOOK ill.” • “There’s so many people worse off than you.” • “I’m sure you don’t REALLY need help.” • “Sometimes it’s easier to just give up.” • “Stop being so negative.”