Icon from a picrew by grgikau. Call me Tir or Julian. 37. He/They. Queer. Twitter: @tirlaeyn. ao3: tirlaeyn. 18+ Only. Star Trek. Sandman. IwtV. OMFD. Definitionless in this Strict Atmosphere.
Eh, while it’s great that these characters are independent, something about all these princesses of color not finding love at the end of their movies rubs me the wrong way. Just like how Disney patted itself on the back for a black princess but she was Frogger damn near the whole movie.
And it would’ve been a great opportunity to cast moc in romantic roles from that culture :/
^^^ I’m so conflicted because yes, always having a love interest is annoying but poc never get to have a love interest
Having the princesses of color not find love reinforces the idea that we have to strong and independent and aren’t needing of any support
But I do like it because it deviates from the norm
It might be cool if they had dudes in the movie who were interested and they had the princesses be like, “naw, I got shit to do, but maybe later!”
Cause then it would obviously be a choice, instead of a worldstate that WoC don’t get hetero love (I’m not even gonna wish for queer love).
This is actually a good example of the need for intersectional feminism.
it is very common that white girl characters have love interests and finding love be the plot line and basis for all their stories and interactions.
It is uncommon for a girl character of color to be seen as a potential love interest, in need of defense by a male character and/or support from a male character full stop.
This is because of the history of social devaluation of woc and infantilization of white women.
Thusly:
it is subversive for white female characters to not have love interests for once and to focus on strength outside of male attention.
while at the same time
is it subversive for woc to be love interests and treated with care and reverence and with support in relationships on screen.
The “norms” for two groups of women are different based on the historical interaction both groups have had to suffer under patriarchal and sexist/racist media.
This is why its okay to feel hurt and roll your eyes when you see people screaming about how michonne from the walking dead “dont need no man” because she’s too “strong” to want to be desired and cared for, while at the same time feel hurt and roll your eyes when Black Widow is suddenly too helpless to get herself free from a basic ass cage and needs to be rescued by her randomly inserted love interest.
On Tuesday, a 2016 update on The Spice Girls 1996 hit “Wannabe” started making the rounds, featuring artists from Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Canada, the U.K., and America putting forth new ideas for what they really, really want: end violence against girls, quality education for all girls, end child marriage, equal pay for equal work.
This list is stil a work in progress, but I really wanted to get it posted. I have either read parts of/all of the texts below or they have been recommended to me. Please reblog and add your own suggestions to the list. Each time someone adds something new, I’ll go back to this original post and make sure to include them. Thanks and enjoy!
Books
Women, Race, and Class by Angela Davis
Women Culture and Politics by Angela Davis
Black Feminist Thought by Patricia Hill Collins
Borderlands/La frontera: The New Mestiza by Gloria Anzaldua
Aint I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism by bell hooks
Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks
Feminist Theory from Margin to Center by bell hooks
Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde
Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity by Chandra Talpade Mohanty
Medicine Stories by Aurora Levins Morales
Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home by Anita Hill
Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide by Andrea Smith
Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions (Feminist Constructions) by Maria Lugones (submitted by oceanicheart)
Feminism FOR REAL: Deconstructing the Academic Industrial Complex of Feminism by Jessica Yee (submitted by oceanicheart)
Communion: The Female Search for Love by bell hooks (via easternjenitentiary)
Making Space for Indigenous Feminism edited by Joyce Green via jalwhite)
All the Women are White, All the Blacks are Men, But Some of Us are Brave: Black Women’s Studies, more commonly known as But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women’s Studies edited by Gloria T. Hull, Patricia Bell Scot, and Barbara Smith (via jalwhite)
Homegirls: A Black Feminist Anthology edited by Barbara Smith (viasisteroutsider)
Theorizing Black Feminisms: The Visionary Pragmatism of Black Women edited by Stanlie James and Abena Busia (via sisteroutsider)
Speaking of “white feminism,” did you know it goes all the way back to the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War? The time period saw simultaneous struggles for the expansion of women’s and black rights, which shaped the trajectory of the feminist movement.
Tumbling over the past year and a half has made me see the problems of gender roles that exist in media, but sometimes it gets to the point where I over analyze every single piece of television or film that I come across. (However this in no way means that I think feminist media criticism is wrong, or should be avoided!) Mostly I just over think everything.
This is awesome!
Oh god, my life.
Sort of relevant?
Sorry for the lack of posts everyone- I’ve started my summer job and studying for MCATS so I’m quite busy! I’ll try to queue up some posts today!
It is a lie that women have been able to vote since 1920.
White women have been able to vote since 1920. All Native American women couldn’t vote until 1924. All Asian women couldn’t vote until 1952. All Black women couldn’t vote until 1964.
In five years there is probably going to be some big centennial celebration of women’s suffrage. But that will be a whitewashing of history. It will be an event that erases the struggles of non-white women. It will be an event that will try to hide the fact that white feminists heros like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton actively argued against the rights of people of color in order to advance their own goals.
okay so this is a good post but uh
native americans couldn’t vote in 1924.
we became citizens in 1924, in an attempt at assimilation, but this was apparently so foggy it had to be reaffirmed in 1940 so native american’s could be drafted.
but native people didn’t gain full voting right until 1964, including native women.
Adding this again, as it’s making some rounds ; The ICRA wasn’t passed until 1964, which allowed Natives the right to vote. However, through 1965-1980, there were still major legal cases where tribal affiliated natives were being denied the right to vote, hold office, etc. As recently as 2010 there was an ACLU court case against counties denying Natives the right to vote.
At 11 o’clock at night, you moved across the train car to sit far too close to two girls about half your age so you could interrupt our conversation to tell us how pretty we are. We said thank you, have a good night, and went back to our conversation.
You interrupted us a second time to say that you didn’t want to bother us, but we needed to hear it, how pretty we are. We said cool, thanks, have a good night, and went back to our conversation.
You interrupted us a third time to say you wouldn’t say anything else, you didn’t want to bother us, you just had to let us know. We said have a good night, and went back to our conversation.
This seemed to perplex you. You came all that way across a train car to bestow upon us this life altering knowledge - the fact we were pretty - and all you got was a polite thank you? You grumbled about gratitude, about how you better not end up on facebook, were we putting you on facebook? Why was my friend looking at her phone? Was she putting you on facebook? All you’d done was tell us we were pretty.
At this point, my friend says, “Sir, we’re trying to have a conversation. Please don’t be disrespectful.”
This was when you got angry. Disrespectful? YOU? For taking the time out of your day to tell us we were pretty? Did we know we were pretty?
“Yes, we knew,” says my friend.
Well, that was the last straw. How dare we know we were pretty! Sure, you were allowed to tell us we were pretty, but we weren’t allowed to think it independently, without your permission! And if we had somehow already known - perhaps some other strange man had informed us earlier in the day - we certainly weren’t allowed to SAY it! Where did we get off, having confidence in ourselves? You wanted us to know we were pretty, sure, but only as a reward for good behavior. We were pretty when you gifted it upon us with your words, and not a moment before! You raged for a minute about how horrible we were for saying we thought we were pretty, how awful we turned out to be.
I took a page out of your book and interrupted you. “Sir, you said you wouldn’t say anything else, and then you kept talking,” I said. “You complimented us, we said thank you, and we don’t owe you anything else. It’s late, you’re a stranger, and I don’t want to talk to you. We’ve tried to disengage multiple times but you keep bothering us.”
At this point, our train pulled into the next stop. My friend suggested we leave, so we got up and went to the door.
Seeing your last chance, you lashed out with the killing blow. “I was wrong!” you shouted at us as we left, “You’re ugly! You’re both REALLY UGLY!”
Fortunately, since our worth as human beings is in no way dependent upon how physically attractive you find us, my friend and I were unharmed and continued on with our night. She walked home; I switched to the next train car and sat down.
So, strange man, I know you’re confused. I don’t know if you’ll think about anything I said to you, but I hope you do learn this: when you give someone something - a gift, a compliment, whatever - with stringent stipulations about how they respond to it, you are not giving anything. You are setting a trap. It is not as nice as you think it is.
But you’ll be happy to know that when I sat down in the next car, a strange man several seats over called, “Hey, pretty girl. Nice guitar. How was your concert?”
“Thanks. Good,” I said, then looked away and put on my headphones, the universal sign for ‘I’d like to be left alone.’
“Wow. Fine. Whatever. Fucking bitch,” he said.
Fucking creepers. May I ask how feminism or anything similar would actually have prevented this from happening? This ya already socially unacceptable.
Men - because to be clear, I called them ‘strange men’ because they were strangers to me, not because there was anything abnormal about them - act this way because they are raised in a culture that lets them believe their time and opinions are more important than the time and opinions of women, and that as a consequence, they are owed women’s attention. They are socialized to believe women should be grateful to them for their attention, and that they are being denied something rightfully theirs when women are not.
Raising someone with feminism, the idea that all sexes/genders are equals and thus no party is beholden to or more important than another, would have prevented this by not allowing men to grow up expecting ‘rights’ that are not actually theirs. You say this is socially unacceptable, but there were 20+ people on that train who actively watched us being harassed and did not say a word. It is socially unacceptable, but this kind of thing happens to me and many other women multiple times a week, with often more traumatic results.
So, yes, I believe more feminism would prevent sexist moments like this. Also, water is wet, the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, and cheese is addictive.
REBLOGGING FOR THE FUCKING COMMENTARY
“when you give someone something - a gift, a compliment, whatever - with stringent stipulations about how they respond to it, you are not giving anything. You are setting a trap. It is not as nice as you think it is.”
Hate vocal fry? Bothered by the use of “like” and “just”? Think uptalk makes people sound less confident? If so, you may find yourself growing increasingly unpopular—there’s a newwave of peoplepointingoutthat criticizing young women’s speech is just old-fashioned sexism.
I agree, but I think we can go even further: young women’s speech isn’t just acceptable—it’s revolutionary. And if we value disruptors and innovation, we shouldn’t just be tolerating young women’s speech—we should be celebrating it. To use a modern metaphor, young women are the Uber of language.
What does it mean to disrupt language? Let’s start with the great English disruptor: William Shakespeare.
Shakespeare is celebrated to this day not just because he wrote a mean soliloquy but because of what he added to our language—he’s said to have brought in over 1,700 words. But recent scholars have called that number of words into question. As Katherine Martin, head of US Dictionaries at Oxford University Press, has pointed out, if Shakespeare was inventing dozens of new words per play, how would his audience have understood him? Rather, it’s likely that Shakespeare had an excellent grasp of the vernacular and was merely writing down words that his audience was already using.
So if Shakespeare wasn’t disrupting the English language, who was? And how did we get from Shakespearean English to the version we speak now? That’s right: young women.
A pair of linguists, Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg at the University of Helsinki, conducted a study that combed through 6,000 personal letters written between 1417 and 1681. The pair looked at fourteen language changes that occurred during this period, things like the eradication of ye, the switch from “mine eyes” to “my eyes,” and the change from hath, doth, maketh to has, does, makes.
In 11 out of the 14 changes, they found that female letter-writers were changing the way they wrote faster than male letter-writers. In the three exceptional cases where the men were ahead of the women, those particular changes were linked to men’s greater access to education at the time. In other words, women are reliably ahead of the game when it comes to word-of-mouth linguistic changes.
This trend hasn’t changed much. While young people have long driven innovation, it’s not just an age thing—it’s also a gender thing. During the decades that sociolinguists have been researching the question, they’ve continually found evidence that women lead linguistic change.
Plus, young women are on the bleeding edge of those linguistic changes that periodically sweep through the media’s trend sections, from uptalk to “selfie” to the quotative like to vocal fry.
The role that young women play as language disruptors is so well-established at this point it’s practically boring to sociolinguists. The founder of modern sociolinguistics, William Labov, observed that women lead 90% of linguistic change—in a paper he wrote 25 years ago. Researchers continue to confirm his findings.
It takes about a generation for the language patterns started among young women to jump over to men. Uptalk, for example, which is associated with Valley Girls in the 1970s, is found among young men today. In other words, women learn language from their peers; men learn it from their mothers.
While the pattern is well-established, we still don’t know for sure yet why young women reliably lead linguistic innovation. Maybe it’s nature, maybe it’s nurture; but we do know that young women tend to be more socially aware, more empathetic, and more concerned about how their peers perceive them. This may translate into a greater facility for linguistic disruption. Women also tend to have larger social networks, which means they’re more likely to be exposed to a greater diversity of language innovations.
And of course, women are still likely to spend more time caring for children than men—even if a particular woman works outside the home, daycare workers and elementary school teachers are disproportionately female. This means that even if young men were disrupting language as much as women, they would be hard-pressed to pass it along.
All of this leads us to the biggest question: if women are such natural linguistic innovators, why do they get criticized for the same thing that we praise Shakespeare for? Plain old-fashioned sexism.
Our society takes middle-aged men more seriously than young women for a whole host of reasons, so it’s only logical that we have also been conditioned to automatically respect the tone and cadence of the typical male voice, as well as their word choices.
Sure, let’s encourage young women to speak with confidence, but not by avoiding vocal fry or “like” or whatever the next linguistic disruption is. Let’s tell them to speak with confidence because they’re participating in a millennia-old cycle of linguistic innovation—and one that generations of powerful men still haven’t figured out how to crack.
“The role that young women play as language disruptors is so well-established at this point it’s practically boring to sociolinguists” *weeps with joy*
