Icon by @ThatSpookyAgent. Call me Tir or Julian. 37. He/They. Queer. Twitter: @tirlaeyn. ao3: tirlaeyn. 18+ Only. Star Trek. The X-Files. Sandman. IwtV. OMFD. Definitionless in this Strict Atmosphere.
(I have previously posted this. This is an updated version. I will be posting this on my facebook on April 2. Let me know if I should add anything.)
Time for some real autism awareness, and not any of that “light it up blue” bullshit.
The consensus among the autistic community is that Autism Speaks is a hate group. If you want to know why, just google “what’s wrong with autism speaks”. Some examples are their videos “I Am Autism” which makes autistic people seem like burdens, and “Autism Every Day” which features a mother talking about wanting to murder her autistic daughter. If you want to actually help autistic people, you should support Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
Light It Up Blue and the puzzle piece are not supported by the autistic community.
Contrary to popular belief, most autistic people prefer “autistic person” over “person with autism”. Autism is something we are, not something we have. You cannot separate a person from their autism. The only time “person with autism” should be used is when they specifically ask to be called that.
The number of people diagnosed with Autism is not “shocking”. We exist. Get over it.
There aren’t more autistic people now. Those who are autistic are just more likely to be diagnosed now.
It is up to each individual disabled person to decide whether their disability needs to be cured. Abled people should not be the ones deciding that. Also, acceptance must come first, because some disabled people may want to be cured only because they don’t know that acceptance is an option.
Most autistic people do not want to be cured. We want to be accepted, not removed from the gene pool. Most autistic people believe that the struggles involving autism are caused by how society treats autistic people, not by autism itself. A non-autistic version of an autistic person would be a completely different person. Curing us would be like murdering us and putting someone else in our bodies.
Even if a cure was possible, it would most likely be very dangerous. People have tried bleach to cure autism, and that doesn’t even work. If a cure actually did work, one can only imagine how dangerous it can be with society still accepting it.
Autistic children become autistic adults. It is impossible for an autistic person to grow out of their autism. We just figure out ways to appear less autistic in order to be accepted, so it may appear that we grew out of it.
An autistic adult who hasn’t been diagnosed yet has most likely spent their entire life trying to be normal, which causes their autistic traits to be less visible, so it’s very difficult for an autistic person to be diagnosed as an adult.
Functioning labels do not help autistic people. They just label us based on how well we can pretend to not be autistic. Instead, state a person’s needs directly (nonverbal autistic person, autistic person who also has a learning disability, etc.) Many autistic people can’t be put into a category because they fit some characteristics of being high functioning and some of being low functioning. Also, unlike the autism condition itself, a person’s functioning label can change over time.
It’s commonly believed in the autism community that autism affects all genders equally. Women/girls are just severely under-diagnosed.
Autistic people are just as diverse as non-autistic people. Not every autistic person is going to remind you of that one autistic person you know.
For a detailed scientific explanation of how vaccines cause autism, go to howdovaccinescauseautism.com.
Even if vaccines did cause autism, you must really hate autistic people if you’re willing to expose your children and any immune-deficient children to deadly diseases in order to prevent autism.
You are not an “autism family” unless your entire family is autistic. Actual autism families exist.
You’re allowed to think that an autistic person is annoying. Just know that we’re allowed to think you’re annoying too.
“I didn’t know they were autistic” is not an excuse. Do not make fun of anyone for being different in a way that’s not hurting anyone else.
Do not accuse someone of faking a disability. The harm caused by a person faking is much less than the harm caused by a person being wrongly accused of faking. Not all disabilities are visible. Not all disabled people fit the stereotypes. Not all disabled people have been diagnosed.
Do not dare someone to do something, pretending that people will like them if they do it, then laugh at them when they do it. Autistic people can’t read your mind and won’t know whether doing something will cause people to like them or think they’re weird.
It’s okay to be surprised to find out that someone is autistic, but don’t compliment someone by telling them that they don’t seem autistic. It implies that being autistic is bad.
Do not use “autistic” as an insult.
Saying “talk to people” as advice for how to make friends is like saying “write numbers” as advice for someone who needs help in math. It’s just about as vague as you can get. If your advice cannot be taken literally (meaning that it’s possible to do something wrong while technically following the advice), it’s bad advice.
Say what you mean. Not everyone can understand subtle hints and hidden meanings.
Don’t expect something to come natural to everyone just because it comes natural to you, even if it actually does come natural to most people.
Talking to people does not come natural to everyone. Not knowing how to talk to people is different from being shy or being afraid of rejection.
If someone says that they’re unable to do something, the correct response is to help them find something similar that they are able to do (or maybe they’re okay with not being able to do it and don’t need your help at all). Do not just say “yes you can”. It’s not a compliment. It’s not reassuring. It’s just denying their personal experiences and making them feel like no one understands them.
If someone tells you about a problem they have, don’t say that everyone experiences it. They know that’s not true. There’s most likely an important detail that you’re missing.
Positive stereotypes are still harmful, because they erase those who don’t fit the stereotype.
Autistic people are not all math geniuses. (I just happen to fit the stereotype.)
If we try to be funny and end up offending someone, we’re expected to stop and apologize. You should too. Do not say “I was just kidding” and expect a free pass. In many cases “I was just kidding” is code for “Normal people consider what I did funny, so you should shut up and accept it.” If you make fun of someone as a joke, that person must be your target audience. If you make fun of someone to get laughs from someone else, you’re just being a bully.
There is nothing “rude” about wanting to be left alone, not wanting to talk, or not making eye contact.
Do not assume someone is lying to you just because they don’t make eye contact or they don’t maintain a straight face.
Do not post videos online of your autistic child having a meltdown.
Do not defend parents who murder their autistic children. I don’t even know why that has to be said.
autistic girls, especially black autistic girls, are misdiagnosed and underdiagnosed because of the focus on white cis boys and how they present as autistic
disabled girls and women often have their consent violated, both in medical procedures and otherwise, our bodies and minds are often not considered are own and we are dismissed as not having the capacity to make our own decisions
on top of that many disabled girls are seen as delusional and their speaking out about the abuse they have face, by whatever communication method, is often seen as them making things up and over reacting
many disabled women are fetishised and seen as an outrageous ‘thing’ to fuck, but are not seen as human
disabled girls, especially physically disabled girls, do not live up to ideas of beauty in our society and often have extreme self esteem issues
disabled women and girls face more shit than you could ever know and I need you to understand
Ableism. Is. A. Feminist. Issue.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deaf people, especially deaf women, are seen as “hysterical” when communicating in sign language if they are upset or angry. Some deaf people cannot hear their own voices, so they might make sounds with their throats while communicating in sign language and some hearing people think that the said deaf people are “crazy.”
Deaf people of color–especially deaf black people (and deaf black women)–have been assaulted or even killed for communicating in sign language because some idiots thought they were flashing “gang signs.”
Many deaf girls and women also face high rates of domestic violence and abuse at the hands of others (deaf or hearing), and have no one to turn to, because there are little or NO accessibility services for deaf survivors of domestic violence.
Able-bodied and hearing feminists SHOULD support deaf girls and deaf women.
Thanks.
Okay, I’m going to sound like a broken record to my followers, but I feel like this is really important to reiterate because even a lot of disabled people don’t notice it. But even so, more disabled people figure this out than nondisabled people ever do, for whatever reason.
First for anyone who doesn’t know me, I face lots of different oppressions and I’m not trying to rank them by saying what I’m about to say. This is not about which oppression is worse than others or more unique than others or anything like that. It’s about a specific kind of relationship between different kinds of oppression.
Most people when they talk about many oppressions at once, they’re talking about something I’d call sideways relationships between oppressions: Talking about what happens when a single person faces multiple oppressions. So, they talk about the experiences of disabled women in sexist, ableist societies, and that’s all most people are going to describe when they say “Ableism is a feminist issue.”
But there’s another kind of relationship, one I’d call deep relationships or vertical relationships or embedded relationships or something else of that sort. This is where one kind of oppression is a part of another kind of oppression. Not because there are people who face both kinds of oppression at once. But because there are ideas central to one kind of oppression, that couldn’t exist without another kind of oppression.
An example that a lot of people understand pretty readily is the relationship between sexism and homophobia. Homophobia would look fundamentally different without sexism. There are aspects of homophobia – central aspects – that exist entirely because women are considered inferior to men. So sexism is embedded deeply within homophobia. They’re intertwined in a way that you can’t remove homophobia without also removing sexism.
All oppressions have horizontal relationships with each other, because there are always people who face every possible combination of oppressions at the same time. Not all oppressions have vertical/embedded/deep relationships with each other, because not all oppressions have central aspects of themselves that utterly depend on the existence of some other kind of oppression.
Every kind of oppression has a deep/embedded/vertical relationship with ableism. Every kind of oppression has ableism embedded deeply within at least some of its core traits. I don’t know why this is the case. But it’s absolutely the case. Meaning you literally can’t address any other kind of oppression without addressing ableism. Can’t. Not possible. Even oppression that is against nondisabled people always contains at least some ableist ideas at its core.
What does this mean with sexism?
It means that women are considered inferior to men based on both real and perceived differences in ability and body type. It means that women’s abilities are sometimes medicalized and pathologized in ways that pretty much exactly resemble the way disabled people’s abilities are sometimes medicalized and pathologized. That’s basically what the ableist aspects of sexism boil down to.
And in vertical relationships of this nature, people have a choice, and they usually seem to choose wrong unless they know what they’re doing. With sexism, that choice is that they can either dismantle the ableism that underlies the way women are considered inferior, pathologized, and medicalized based on body type and abilities. Or they can distance themselves from the entire idea of being disabled, hoping that will make everything go away. Most oppressed groups, faced with this choice, have a tendency to just distance themselves from disabled people. It’s far easier in the short run, and far worse for both women and disabled people in the long run. Especially because the distancing usually serves to reinforce the exact ableism that they’re trying to get away from.
So what sorts of ableist ideas are there about women?
The idea that women are physically weaker and therefore inferior.
The entire idea behind the concept of hysteria in every form it’s ever taken.
The idea that women aren’t as smart as men, and the idea of what that means about women’s worth.
The idea that women are highly emotional and therefore not reliable at understanding themselves or the world around them.
The idea that the male body is the default and the female body is a defective variant on it, and an afterthought.
The idea that men have all the abilities that lead them to be accomplished people who go down in history, and women don’t and that’s why we never hear about as many women’s accomplishments.
The way that ordinary women’s issues become medicalized and pathologized in ways that most men’s issues don’t.
I once heard an MRA refer to the women’s Olympics as the “Special Olympics” as.a way of making it sound like women aren’t the real athletes, and if that isn’t an example of a vertical relationship between ableism and sexism in a very specific context I don’t know what is..
And I’m sure there are tons more examples, those are just some of the obvious broad ones that come to mind the fastest. These are ways that you can’t get rid of sexism without also getting rid of ableism. Not because there are disabled women. These are aspects of sexism that are ableist and yet affect nondisabled women just as much. So you can’t get rid of the way sexism and ableism combine even by ignoring the existence of disabled women. Because you don’t just have a horizontal relationship between the two, you also have a vertical one. And vertical ones mean that one kind of oppression is embedded too deeply within another, too deeply intertwined, for it to be possible to separate them out without addressing both.
So that’s the other side, the one you won’t hear as often, as to why ableism is a feminist issue. And ableism is just as deeply embedded in every other kind of oppression. I don’t know why it’s done that so thoroughly in a way that most oppressions haven’t, but it has. Not all oppressions have vertical relationships with each other, but ableism has vertical relationships with everything else, sometimes one-way, sometimes both ways, but always there. And sexism is no exception.
This is why ableism is so important to anyone fighting any kind of oppression, and why I’m so weirded out that it often gets treated as either a minor form of oppression or as not really a form of oppression at all, by people who ought to know better. Like people who claim to be about fighting oppression are always trivializing ableism even though it’s the key to a deeper understanding of their own oppression and it’s necessary to fix it in order to fix any other kind of oppression because of those vertical relationships that exist. I don’t think I’ll ever get why this happens.
Anonymous: so if an autist kid is melting down in my living room and smashing all of my property I'm supposed to stand around and watch? Yeah m8 ok, that's not gonna happen, that person will be restrained and made to leave the house
Are you aware of what a meltdown is and why it happens?
(WARNING, THIS WILL BE LONG. HOWEVER I ASK THAT YOU, ANON, MAKE AN EFFORT TO READ IT ALL.) Also if another autistic person sees something false that I have written in this then please inform me, I speak from what I know, but I dont know everything.
A meltdown is a response to stressful and overwhelming over-stimulation. It is involuntary and an extremely unpleasant and distressing experience for an autistic person to go through. It is not the wilful and intentional violent destruction of a person’s property and is not rooted in any desire to cause harm.
While shutdowns could be described as more of an internal withdrawal response to over-stimulation (that doesnt fully describe it but the topic rn isnt shutdowns so forgive me for the over simplification and lack of detail), meltowns are a more outwards and often times more visible response to the distress caused by over-stimulation. I will repeat that meltdowns are not a reaction autistic people can control and are not caused by a desire to destroy things.
Autistic people may have a meltdown when they are in stressfully overwhelming and/or over-stimulating situations/environments. What an autistic person finds overwhelming/over-stimulating differs from one autistic person to another.
For example lets say that an autistic person is extremely sensitive to sound and cannot stand physical contact from people and they are put in an environment that is extremely loud and crowded with people, without any means of blocking it out/removing themselves from the environment and protecting themselves from becoming over-stimulated. Its almost inevitable that this autistic person may become distressingly over-stimulated and could more than likely experience a meltdown.
Meltdowns can include screaming, shouting, crying, the person curling in on themselves, stimming (in an attempt to regulate the sensory input and calm down), the person becoming non-verbal, shying away from touch/physical contact.
Meltdowns can also include self injurious behaviour such as; pulling at their own hair, hitting themselves, biting themselves, scratching themselves. Very, very rarely does a meltdown involve hurting other people and most of the time it happens because someone tries to touch that autistic person while they are experiencing the meltdown and the autistic person involuntarily lashes out in response to the unexpected, and unwanted physical contact. Unwanted because physical contact only adds MORE over-stimulation when a person is already over-simulated and overwhelmed.
Which is why autistic people stress the importance of NOT touching an autistic person during a meltdown or shutdown unless they have given you permission to do so. Otherwise is will only make the situation worse and could result in both you and the autistic person becoming injured.
Do you notice what wasnt mentioned in my kinda-list of what can happen during a meltdown? Yeah thats right. Not a single mention of ‘smashing’ a persons propety. You know why that wasnt mentioned? Because wilful destruction of property isnt really a part of meltdowns.
An autistic person having a meltdown really isnt likely to start running around destroying your property. They are responding to over-stimulation and honestly are much more concerned with getting the meltdown to end and getting the over stimulation to stop so that they can stop being in pain.
And let me tell you something thats pretty important to this hypothetical situation you’ve conjured up: If an autistic person is having a meltdown in your living room then that means they are experiencing a sensory overload, which wouldnt be happening if you were conscious of their sensory needs/what they find over-stimulating. If you were accommodating for the fact that they are autistic.
If its someone you didnt know was autistic or what-not then you cant be faulted. However I dont think its too hard/so unreasonable to ask if there are any sensory issues they have that you need to be aware of so that they are comfortable and dont experience a sensory overload. Autistic people tend to try to do this for themselves anyway but it really does help a lot if allistic people are willing to be accommodating and respect our sensory issues.
And if someone is having a meltdown in your living room? Then no, unless they specifically asks you to, you do NOT restrain, or even touch that person without their permission. If someone is having a meltdown then you do what you can to help. If you know what caused the meltdown then you stop it (for example if its loud music then you turn the music off), and do what you can to reduce the sensory input for the time being if possible. If its the environment then try to help them leave the environment so that they can escape the sensory hell and begin to recover.
Or the very least you can do is be patient and wait, leave them be for a while so that they can wind down from the sensory overload and recover in their own time (though really, trying to make the environment less over-stimulating for them would be a great help).
To summarise: You are almost 100% wrong. An autistic person having a meltdown isnt very likely to smash your property. Touching and restraining an autistic person having a meltdown without their clear permission is wrong and should not be done. Its more likely to get you and that person injured than it is to fix the problem. Forcefully removing them from your home and dumping them outside in the middle of a meltdown is, in my opinion, bordering dangerously on flat out cruel.
The thing about Tumblr that probably makes me saddest is the underlying assumption that women past a certain age (which seems to be about 25?) stop having any sort of outside interests beyond family/career/kids. Like, y’all are always so shocked that grown women have lives and can fangirl as hard as we did as teenagers.
It makes me sad not because it makes me feel old (although it does), but because these younger women are constricting their own lives–they fully expect that this will happen to them someday. Y’all deserve better. Y’all deserve to EXPECT better.
And worse than that, the idea that there’s something WRONG with a grown woman who has other interests.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the biggest things I realized growing up?
It doesn’t happen.
You expect somehow you will change when you are finally An Adult™. You’ll stop enjoying the things you enjoy now for something more “adult” or “mature.” You’ll FEEL like an adult and not like a child anymore. You’ll feel comfortable and secure and not scared and unsure and confused. You expect you will feel like you have your shit together.
But I can tell you that it doesn’t happen. You’ll still feel like the “you” you were at 15 or 17 or 19.
You just have these…things to deal with. Like rent. And insurance.
You have a job either because a) you like it or b) it keeps the lights and internet on.
You’ll look up from fangirling one day and realize “Shit. I am twenty eight years old. That’s almost 30!”Or maybe it will be that you look down at the small child clasped around your legs and realize “That is my child. I have a child. A human being child.” Or maybe it will be that you have to negotiate your budget around con tickets AND a mortgage payment.
Growing up isn’t a thing that happens.
It’s a realization that it doesn’t happen.
Holy shit, y’all. There are some AMAZING responses to this post. Yes, everything alwayshometomarvel says. All that.
Feeling like I wasn’t ‘adult’ enough fucked me up for years. I would cry at night and feel like a total piece of shit because I was married with a kid, and yet I still did ‘not adult’ things–I played MMOs, I cosplayed and went to conventions, I drew fan art and wrote fan fic. I kept waiting for the day that I would wake up and realize that what I really needed to be doing was the laundry, cleaning the house, making dinner every night, etc. Basically, be the ‘perfect’ wife and mother.
And somewhere between then and now, I somehow managed to tell myself…fuck it. I AM an adult. I go to work every day and pay the bills and help raise my son and take care of the house. I do legit adult things. AND I play MMOs, go to conventions, and participate in fandom. And THAT’S OKAY. I’m 32 years old now and finally at peace with that part of myself. (Having a supportive husband and kid doesn’t hurt either!)
All of this is such truth. Believing these things about growing up, and especially about being over 25? Really made it hard for me when I turned 30.
I was literally suicidal on my 30th birthday. I spent the whole day in tears. I felt like I had died and my life was now worthless and small and never going to be hopeful or full of promise or fun again. I felt like killing myself on my birthday because I bought into this lie that somewhere after your mid-twenties, you diminish as a woman because the only thing that made you alive and shiny was your youth.
I’m 31 now and I’m done with that shit. I’m over it. I don’t care if you think I’m too old for something. If I’m an old lady in Tumblr terms, then I’m past the legal age where I’m obligated to care what you think.
So, I’m telling you girls out there right now who are in your teens and twenties, get rid of this idea of what older women are “supposed” to look like. Get rid of this idea that “soccer moms” don’t play video games or that all women over 25 should be married and contemplating kids. Get rid of the idea that fanfic and fandom and fun things are for “kids.”
Mostly, get rid of this notion that the only thing really valuable about you is your youth. Youth is part of life, but it’s not the most valuable or beautiful or exciting time of your life. I like my life at 30 about 1000% than I did at 15, 18, 20, even 25.
on her deathbed, my grandmother pulled my mom close to her and said, “i don’t feel old. i don’t know how i’m supposed to feel. but inside, i still feel seventeen.” when I was a teenager, I used to think that story was sad; sad and strange somehow, like she’d been frozen in time. but now that i am a woman in my thirties, I understand. I understand her. I am a grown woman in the ways that matter. I listen to myself more, trust my experience more. but inside? I still feel the joy and rage and mess; I am still changing. we’re not frozen in time. we are just still growing.
the more we acknowledge that modern “adulthood” is largely a concept designed to sell vacuums and sedans, and not an arbitrary total overhaul of self at age 35, the more we can admit our ongoing capacity– no, our ongoing NEED for play and playfulness and exploration. those are childish things we should never have to put away.
This is not a normal post that you’ll find on my blog, but I was placed in a situation today unlike anything I ever expected to encounter. I wanted to share it with all of you in hopes that you will end up feeling the same way that I do.
I am a sophomore at university in the United States, and as a liberal arts credit, I am required to take English Composition II, the second installment of my writing courses. My professor asked us to write a one-page opinion response on which presidential candidate we would be voting for the upcoming election.
Initially, I came into the class with the expectation that, seeing as my generation would be passionate about choosing a candidate that would best mold their futures, there would be a handful of, maybe two or three, Donald Trump supporters. After being placed in a group of eleven people, myself included, I was faced with the reality of nine different people stating that they would vote for Donald Trump come fall.
After attempting to get over the initial shock, I looked at the four females and five males and asked one simple question, “If you didn’t just choose to write about him and are actually considering voting for him, why would you?” Immediately, a silence followed until a male stepped up and said, “Wait, Trump is an excellent candidate; why wouldn’t I want to vote for him?” My heart sunk even further.
Finally, I managed to get a few replies from different people, and here’s what they had to say. One man said, “I like Trump because he doesn’t want to take our guns away.” After that, a woman spoke up and said, “Yeah, I feel really passionate about Trump because of his opinion on the Second Amendment.” And the final statement: “I think Trump would be a great president because he’s a business man and he understand how to make this country better because of his work in business; that’s who we need in office.”
To someone, these ideals might be completely adequate reasons to elect someone into office, but you will see below that simply looking at one side of an argument is not enough. Donald Trump has a track record that dates back before he even considered running, and most recently, his record has become more worrying. If you are thinking of voting for Trump, I implore you to read what facts I have complied below, and I ask that you use logical reasoning and that you change your decision. If you are choosing to vote for another candidate, please, spread the word of this post. I’m twenty, and today, I saw other twenty-year-old students say that their future would be better if Trump was in office. This is not the case, and I ask for you to spread the word and inform people of what is below. And if you happen to not live in United States, please, still discuss this information with others; inform your followers and others in your life about the dangers of supporting Donald Trump.
In no particular order, compiled below are the most important reasons why Donald Trump, primarily, is not a viable presidential candidate and, secondarily, is not a respectable person.
His Opinions on Latinos:
Trump has said a multitude of things against Latinos, so I will list these. [source | source]
1. He called Latinos “rapists” and “criminals” and “killers” and extended his comments to Central and South Americans, too. 2. He stated that the Mexican government is more cunning and purposely sends Mexican criminals to the United States because Mexico does not “want to take care of them.” 3. After being told that 80% of women and girls from Central America are actually raped by gang members and/or human smugglers, Trump dismissed the victims and stated that Latino immigrants were actually the cause of those rape statistics. 4. On Twitter, Trump attacked Jeb Bush’s Mexican-Born wife twice. 5. Trump stated that his followers were “passionate” after he heard that two men beat-up an 58-year-old Hispanic man in Trump’s honor. 6. Trump openly blamed African American and Hispanic individuals for the violent crimes in major U.S. cities. 7. Trump voiced that he will build an impenetrable 2,000 mile wall between Mexico and the United States to keep the “illegals” out, and he stated that Mexico would pay for the wall, a symbol that would represent anti-Mexican hostility.
The Issue: This is blatant discrimination against not only Latinos but other minorities as well. This type of discrimination includes calling a broadened group of individuals terms like “rapists” and “killers”, which is biased and which maliciously affects minorities. These hateful words from Trump stems hate from his supporters, as seen in number five above, and this type of racial violence is utterly unacceptable.
His Ban on Muslims:
Trump wishes to ban all Muslims from entering the United States by creating a religious screening before entering the country. Additionally, the ban would be enforced on Muslim tourists wishing to enter the United States, and though the ban would not affect Muslims currently living in the States, Trump did state that the country must remain “vigilant”. [source]
The Issue: Trump and his supporters recognize the past and recent ISIS attacks in various parts of the world and try to find a common thread. That common thread, in some cases, is their religion. However, Trump makes the over-generalization that all Muslims are terrorists, and this is religious discrimination. There are radicals in every religious group. For instance, in Christianity, the KKK stemmed off as a radical group; however, this clearly does not mean that every Christian individual is a part of the KKK and believes in their values. This same mindset follows in line with Muslims and ISIS, and doing what Trump wishes to fulfill is a perfect example of religious discrimination against Muslims.
His Opinions on Women:
Much like Latinos, Trump has said many derogatory things about women, so again, I will list these. [source | source]
1. Women are essentially aesthetically-pleasing objects. 2. Sexual assault in the military is expected because “what did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?”
3. Women on The Apprentice were largely dependent on their sex appeal. 4. Bad press isn’t detrimental as long as one has a “young and beautiful piece of ass”. 5. A woman’s ability to become a journalist is entirely dependent on if she’s attractive or not. 6. Pumping breast milk to feed a baby is “disgusting”. 7. Women hate prenups because they are in the marriage for money. 8. Hillary Clinton would be a bad president because, if she couldn’t satisfy her husband, she wouldn’t be able to satisfy the United States. 9. Women find Trump’s money a turn-on. 10. About various women, to Trump, Angeline Jolie has dated too many men to be attractive anymore, Bette Midler is unattractive and has an ugly face and body, Rosie O’Donnell is rude, cruel, obnoxious, and dumb, and Cher is a lonely loser because she doesn’t support him. 11. After reporter Megyn Kelly stated to Trump, “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals…” he voiced back, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” After the statement, Trump said that Megyn had “blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her – wherever,” making a reference to her being on her period.
The Issue: This is, yet again, another form of discrimination; this time, it is against women. Alongside of Trump discriminating women who speak their minds against him, he also over-generalizes women and regularly associates them as sex objects. This is sexual harassment and abuse, and his words and actions violate not only women on a personal level but a collective level as well.
His Jokes on Shooting People:
Trump stated previously that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and that he wouldn’t even lose a voter. He laughed about the comment and refused to answer questions asking for clarification. [source | source]
The Issue: Taking someone else’s life is not a joking matter in any case, and even more so, it shouldn’t be a joke made during a presidential election. Homicide is not a laughing matter, yet Trump seems to think it is.
His Opinions on His Daughter:
Trump stated in 2006 that, if Ivanka Trump wasn’t his daughter, he would be dating her. He also said, “If I weren’t happily married and, you know, [Ivanka’s] father…” He also said that the one thing he liked having in common with his daughter was sex. [source]
The Issue: Based on the aforementioned, Trump exhibits incestual desires towards his daughter, and seeing as the United States does not culturally or legally agree with those types of actions, this section makes extremely uncomfortable.
His Violation of His Wife:
Trump’s ex-wife Ivana stated that she felt “violated” during sex and actually accused him of rape, but not in the “criminal sense”. Michael Cohen, Trump’s special counsel, rebuked the claims, saying, “You cannot rape your spouse.” [source]
The Issue: I don’t wish to make any definitive accusations on this topic, but please, read the source if you choose to. The one part that is disturbing is the belief of Trump and his counsel that one cannot rape their spouse. After 1984, a law was enacted that a spouse could not longer be exempt from sexual assault charges filed against them by their wife or husband. Therefore, a spouse can be raped by their significant other.
His Views on the Middle East and North Korea:
Trump wants to take $1.5 million worth of oil from Iraq to pay off the cost of the war, and he also feels that Iraq should pay for their own liberation. Also, he deems that humanitarian interventions are not effective, that the United States must only use direct threats to best serve the country. Trump also wants to use reciprocated nuclear force to stop North Korean threats. [source]
The Issue: The United States chose to get involved in the political and social unrest in Iraq. Asking the nation to pay for the United States debt and informing the nation to handle its own liberation is morally unacceptable. The United States brought it upon itself to get involved, and leaving at a time where the nation could potentially collapse is not a plan of sound mind. Also, direct threats would only cause fear in Iraq and even in the United States, and if actual bombing do occur, innocent people in Iraq will be killed with no remorse. Finally, using reciprocated nuclear force will only cause a repeat of the Cold War, a time where no one felt safe.
His Plan of Mass Deportation:
Trump wants to deport over 11 million Americans, calling an end to birthright citizenship as well, which is a constitutionally protected right. [source | source]
The Issue: Primarily, Trump wishes to change the Constitution, a feat that would nearly separate the nation into two groups once more. Secondarily, the mass deportation of Americans would cause economic unrest. As for individuals who may state that the deportation would create more jobs for American citizens who are, by Trump’s actions, “allowed” to stay, the United States current unemployment rate is 5%, which is an extremely healthy rate. Just compare it to the rate of 24.75% in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929. The unemployment rate will never bottom out to 0%; there must be some variation in the job market for the economy to keep moving.
His Lack of Knowledge on Political Principles:
Trump lacks knowledge of key political principles, specifically those that deal most with security, such as the nuclear triad. [source | source]
The Issue: As a stated above in my beginning paragraphs, people believe that Trump would be an excellent president because of his business knowledge. However, in cases like nuclear threats and international security, his knowledge stops. No matter how much of a businessman he is, Trump does not have the proper amount of political knowledge needed to be the president of a nation.
His Lack of Factual Knowledge:
Trump believes that vaccines cause autism, states that President Obama was not a citizen of the United States, and believes that global warming is hoax and that it “goes up and it goes down”. [source | source | source]
The Issue: Trump’s necessity to voice his own opinions with factual backing will lead to a road where individuals lack the ability to think for themselves and oppose differing viewpoints. People will simply blindly follow without any inductive reasoning on their own.
His Public Support from a Former KKK Leader:
Trump’s rhetoric is being used to recruit more individuals to join the KKK because of the momentum at his rallies and campaigns, and he has full support from a former KKK leader, specifically concerning his plan to ban Muslims from the United States. [source | source]
The Issue: I present this without much explanation. Just remember that the KKK was and still is a radical religious group that killed various minority individuals, and Trump has their support.
His Remarks on John McCain:
Trump completely disregarded the service that John McCain paid to his country by stating that McCain was only a war hero because he was captured and that Trump preferred people who weren’t captured. [source]
The Issue: This is discriminatory towards all of the veterans who have served for the United States.
His Accusation of George W. Bush Causing 9/11 Attacks:
Trump pointed the finger at former president George W. Bush, stating that 9/11 attacks occurred during his presidency and alluded that Bush was to blame. [source | source]
The Issue: The 9/11 attacks are a topic that continues to be painful for a majority of Americans, yet Trump finds it moral to pin the blame on a former president for these attacks, once again, without any factual backing.
These thirteen subcategories are, guaranteed, not everything that I could list, but these points were the ones I wished to emphasize the most. Now, I will make a final appeal to you.
A common thread throughout all of these points is fear and anger, and these emotions are infectious. Trump presents fear whenever he incorrectly speaks out about Muslims and their alleged link to terrorism. Trump hands over anger when he incorrectly states that all Latinos are rapists and killers. Also, when Trump objectifies women, others then think it is acceptable to do the same, much when Trump speaks out about jokingly killing people on the street. These types of emotions and ideas that Trump breathes are not conducive to a safe environment for minorities, women, children, or even the general public. Fear turns to anger, anger turns to outrage, and the society that we currently live in will house more violence and more discrimination; and that type of fear and anger will be hard to stop.
History does repeat itself, and I see a repeat of history occurring if Trump is elected into office. Minorities will be punished, starting with the Latinos and Muslims in the United States, and eventually, this anger will spread throughout the world. Defenseless human beings will lose their lives in countries without the power to save themselves because one man with immense political power is arrogant, discriminatory, and hateful. Countries will quickly turn on us, though many are turning already because of this upcoming election, and the networks that the United States have made over years of progress will be lost in an instant.
Occurrences in the past will repeat again. Individuals are and will be brainwashed by this man, and I can assure you that nothing good will come of this fact. People who don’t fit the genetic or physical make-up will be ostracized, removed, and/or killed, and the United States will cease to be the great and powerful nation is it now. It will become merely a target for other countries to laugh at, to frown upon, or to attack and stop.
This is not some minor thing that you simply won’t affect; this is a revolutionary election coming up, and every vote counts. That being said, every vote away from Trump is a vote towards a better and undoubtedly safer future.
Here is a list of primary dates to vote, and if you aren’t registered to vote, you can do that here. But know that if you are not registered as either a democrat or republican, you will be unable to vote in the upcoming primaries. However, you can still vote in the election come fall, which will be held on November 8. If you are away at college, overseas, or unable to make it back by the primaries and election in your state, you can request an absentee ballot here. If you would like a full calendar of events, click here.
I am not writing this to tell you to vote for a specific candidate on the ballot; I am telling you these things so that you do not check off that box next to Donald Trump’s name. It is imperative that you vote in the primaries if you can and then in the fall, and please, do not vote for Donald Trump. I am excited for my future, to see what is to come, but if Donald Trump becomes president, I will truly fear my future. I hope that you feel the same way I do and choose to vote for anyone but Trump for the 2016 election.
Also, please retweet this tweet to spread awareness.
BOOOOOST
I will die if Donald gets elected. Many will die.
BOOST THE SHIT OUT OF THIS. THIS POST IS IMPORTANT AND CAN SAVE LIVES SO DO NOT CHECK OFF THAT BOX
If the US actually elects a man like Trump, not only will they repeat the mistakes other countries (like Germany, for example) have made in the past (and those mistakes the US still likes to remind everyone of whenever possible, while neglecting to mention their own history) but also we will truly live in a dystopia. If the US really actually votes Trump into office, I can only hope that all other countries will sever connection to the disaster your poor continent will become.
Anonymous: There's been an ongoing conversation about the usage of black slang(like "fam" and "woke") by non-black people, and I was wondering what is your opinion on it? Is it okay to use slang/vernacular from a culture that isn't yours? I'd never thought about where I get the words I use before, but now I wonder whether the slang I've subconsciously learned on Internet is cultural appropriation.
I’m sure I don’t have the answer on this, and I’d love to hear from @allthingslinguistic and @superlinguo, as they’ll have a better idea how academic linguistics weighs in on this.
One thing to keep in mind throughout the following discussion: No one owns a language.
Language is a tough nut to crack because it simply is. The natural languages on Earth weren’t created by any one person—or any group of people—and they simply evolved into different forms, with no cutoff between one language being one thing (e.g. Old English) and then something else (e.g. Modern English). If you want a very cut and dried example of appropriation and its effects, there’s a wonderful (and short) example in the movie Bring It On (the cheerleading one starring Kirsten Dunst).
For those who haven’t seen it, Kirsten Dunst plays a white cheerleader at a high school in San Diego. Eliza Dushku plays a new recruit who transfers from a school in LA. On viewing their practice Dushku calls out Kirsten, saying that all of their routines have been stolen from a black cheerleading squad at a high school she’s familiar with in Compton. Kirsten is unaware of this—as is everyone on the team—because it’s their coach that stole the routines and presented them as something new and original. Once they realize this—and meet the squad they’ve unwittingly disenfranchised—they determine to create new original routines.
This is a handy example because it’s nice and neat: The white group stole something from the black group that the white group would not have come up with on their own. Furthermore, the theft is demonstrably detrimental, as the white group is at a school famous for its cheerleading which has a lot more visibility on the national stage, so they’re a shoe-in for competitions; the black group is not. Also it’s very clear that the white group itself isn’t at fault: there was a single person at fault (the coach), and the group was unaware. Making things even better, once the group is made aware, they make the conscious decision to abandon the stolen routines, and even manage, via their status, to raise the visibility of the disenfranchised group, allowing them to compete on the national stage (and, as I recall, they win, too—the group from Compton).
Now let’s move back to language. Part of what makes language muddy and situations like the one in Bring It On simple is everything can be identified in the latter: The group from Compton created the routines; one single person was responsible for stealing the routines; it is easily demonstrable that the theft benefits the privileged group and disenfranchises the original creators. With language, it’s rarely ever clear who invented what. It’s also rarely ever clear who was responsible for a linguistic element moving from the in group to the out group. It’s also near impossible to say what the damage is when some word or phrase moves from one group to another. Only one thing is clear: Everyone is Kirsten Dunst in this scenario. Language comes and you use it. You don’t know where it came from or why: It’s just there.
Take the examples you listed above—“fam” and “woke”, or another one of my favorites, “bae”. No one can say where precisely they came from, but I can tell you this: If you know those words it is already too late. They’re out. They’ve hopped the fence. No one can control them anymore. This article cites a website that tracks the use of words in rap songs, and it claims that “bae” has been showing up in rap songs since 2005.
Let me say that again: In rap songs. Published rap songs that anyone can listen to. Unless the first rapper to use it in a song actually invented it, it seems likely that the word was already in use and had spread quite a bit. If it started out as a regionalism, it was now a colloquialism. When it gets to a popular medium like music, though, it’s likely that someone will hear it and not know that it started out as a regionalism. If you hear a word you don’t know all you know is that you don’t know it. Once you know it, though, you can use it. And unless someone specifically tells you not, you will.
Now, when can someone tell you not to use a word? That’s an interesting question. I always rely on the general tenet that one shouldn’t make fun of or disparage others. If it can be demonstrated that using a word does precisely that, intentionally or unintentionally, that’s reason enough to tell someone not to use a word (ahem, Washington football team). Furthermore, these things can be successful. Stewardess is one example (a gendered and, given the associations, a somewhat disparaging word). When I was growing up, everyone used it. Now no one does: Everyone uses flight attendant. I don’t know how it happened, but it did, and it was damn effective. Same thing happened with gyp (meaning to cheat). I used this all the time as a kid, because I learned it and used it. Everyone did. I had absolutely no idea that “gyp” was short for “gypsy”, and that the etymology was “to behave like a gypsy towards someone”. If you’d asked me then, I probably would’ve thought you spelled it jip, because institutional racism against the Roma people is so much more prevalent in Europe than it is in the United States. When someone finally told me that that’s where that word came from, I was shocked, because the notion is so remote to most Americans. But I did immediately stop using it. And I’ve noticed it’s simply not common anymore, which is a good thing. I’m in California, so I can’t speak for the rest of the US, but I don’t see it a lot online, either.
These movements can also be overt, and can often be effective. When I was in high school, “gay” as an insult was extremely common. There were groups that actively campaigned against that, though (as a basketball fan, I loved that this commercial was played regularly during games), and, YouTube comments aside, it’s been pretty effective. “Gay” as an insult is nowhere near as common as it was. In short, if it’s a societal push, you can actually banish words from the lexicon.
Back to the question that opened the previous paragraph, should we not be using “bae”? Tough to say if it’s hard to say who “we” is. That is, using “gay” as an insult is clearly disparaging to homosexuals. Using “bae” for one’s significant other, though, doesn’t really disparage anybody. That is, unless one is using the word to mock a hypothetical black user of the word, in which case the message shouldn’t be don’t use “bae”, but rather, uh, don’t mock anyone for the way they speak. When it comes to teasing people for comedy, they’d better be on even footing with you (so it’s just as likely that they could be teasing you), and you shouldn’t ever mock something someone has absolutely no control over, such as the circumstances of their birth, the color of their skin, or the way they speak their own language.
This should, in my opinion, take precedence over trying to puzzle out who came up with which word, and whether or not one is sufficiently a part of a given group to use it. Especially in casual usage, it’s not clear what advantages a non-black English speaker is gaining by using a word like “bae” that a black English speaker is missing out on. Being a rapper paid to use language is one thing; being a person with a Tumblr is another.
Also it’s important to separate vocabulary from grammar. AAE isn’t just a set of vocabulary: It’s a distinct and consistent way of speaking the English language. One can use a noun or two without coming anywhere close to trying to use AAE.
Also when it comes to vocabulary it’s important to have a bit of perspective. Words like “fam” and “woke” and “bae” are quite new in the general public consciousness. They may be here to stay; they may not. Other words from AAE and elsewhere have come and gone, and others have come and stayed, but no one is complaining about those that have stayed. For example, both “old school” and “back in the day” are from black English—and fairly recently, too—but they are absolutely a part of English now. You can’t even say “back in the old days” or “way back when” anymore without it sounding folksy. I knew “back in the day” had moved into common parlance when I met my wife @thisallegra who used it all the time, but who apparently had no idea it came from black English (I, of course, remembered it from the song, which is the first place I heard it, since I listened almost exclusively to rap between 1991 and 1994). If she was just using it without any idea that it should be tagged as a regionalism, it was already on its way to becoming standard English.
I do have a theory as to why it stuck around, though, and this’ll take me to “bae”. “Back in the old days” has always suggested old-timeyness. You could say it, and it conveyed the same meaning, but it carried a sense of…not disparagement, but non-seriousness with it. That is, if you say “back in the old days”, you can expect whoever you’re talking to to take what you’re saying with a grain of salt. There’s actually no such judgment with “back in the day”. If anything, it suggests reverence. I don’t recall any such expression that existed before that (or nothing as compact), meaning that the expression filled a gap: It was useful. That’s why it made the jump.
And that brings us to bae. The most common way to refer to one’s significant other is “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”. These are gendered terms. Of late, we’ve been pushing to find non-gendered terms for roles and words that, previously, have been gendered. What doe sone do for “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”? What’s English got? Significant other? Too clunky. Boyfriend or girlfriend? I’ve seen it (e.g. “Do you have a boyfriend or girlfriend?”), but it’s both clunky and exclusive (it refers to someone that is either male or female and that’s it). S.O.? I’ve seen it, but it’s not common. Baby? Still reads as female, most of the time (one of the many words that isn’t gendered but still has de facto gender coding). So what else is there? Using someone like honey? Too specific.
Think about it. This was a pretty serious gap in English. We just didn’t have a good word to refer to a significant other without referring to their gender. Pretty lame. English speakers the world over have had ample opportunity to come up with something to fill this gap. No one did. Until bae.
Is it any wonder that people everywhere are using “bae” now? It seriously codes as completely gender-irrelevant. It’s pretty useful that way (e.g. I’ve seen that meme where it says “when you’re waiting for bae to text you back”, and it can pair with any image, regardless of gender. It’s great!). And my read on it (feel free to comment) is that there is absolutely no default gender for “bae”. It’s not a term that mainly refers to men that can be used for women, or vice-versa. You can use it to refer to any person who identifies as any gender. Far from worrying about whether or not we should use it on account of cultural appropriation, we should find the person(s) who invented it and give them a damn medal. Since it’s language, though, we’ll likely never know.
So, long answer to a short question, this is about where I land on the issue. Ask yourself: Am I actively disparaging or mocking someone by using a particular word? If not, does the word ultimately derive from a slur or insult? If not, am I capitalizing on someone else’s work and benefitting from it? If not, am I misrepresenting myself and the way I ordinarily speak? If the answer to all those questions is “no”, you should be good. That’s my 2¢. I look forward to hearing what others in or adjacent to linguistics have to say.
This post makes me happy on so many levels. Thoughtful, well-reasoned, sensitive, respectful, and conscious of cultural drift/shift/flow all at once. I doff my hat to you, fellow scholar.
After claiming to have watched Felix Baumgartner’s famous Red Bull Stratos jump from the edge of space, recording artist B.o.B is furiously tweeting everything science says about the Earth being round is a total lie. Why is he doing this? We have an idea.
the pot not only called the kettle black, the pot then proceeded to write a rap song about it
this is the most fascinatingly un-self-aware thing i’ve seen in a really long time
This is either a real life shitpost or a postmodern piece
White people be like “white people be like” but they be the white people that be like
Hey look, it’s the continuing adventures of “People on Tumblr don’t like to look into the shit they intend to criticize.” The lines right before the verse in the original post here are “Oh, what are you doing Ben? What are you doing here? Think about it.” Then he goes into the verse. He’s literally talking about himself. This isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it’s Macklemore talking about how a bunch of POC before him were the only reason his music ever took off, and how now he owes it to the community whos’ culture he borrowed from to participate in their movements. Later on in the song, he says:
Here’s a link to the song, and a link to the lyrics. I know the hilarious meme is that Macklemore is just another white guy idiot, but please don’t let that get in the way of him trying to follow the exact code of conduct that most people on this website would assign to him; because this song is literally nine fucking minutes of the guy checking his privilege.
And if you want to get deeper into this, Macklemore was on the streets marching to support Ferguson, and when somebody tried to interview him about it his reply was, “This isn’t about me, it’s about Mike Brown.”
And you wanna call him a real-life shitpost? Fuck you, actually LOOK at what he’s doing instead of jumping to easy conclusions that make you feel morally superior. I don’t like his music but I respect him as a person for trying to check his privilege and going hard for PoC.
I do not understand this “male privilege" bullshit.
What. Fucking. Privileges. Do. Men. Have.???????
Name them. I swear, I challenge you to name these “male privileges" and be able to prove them.
Come on, I fucking dare you.
Name them!
Oh boy. Well, as a man, I’ll tell you my male privilege.
My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
I can be confident in the fact that my co-workers won’t think that I was hired/promoted because of my sex - despite the fact that it’s probably true.
If I ever am promoted when a woman of my peers is better suited for the job, it is because of my sex.
If i ever fail at my job or career, it won’t be seen as a blacklist against my sex’s capabilities.
I am far less likely to face sexual harassment than my female peers.
If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
If I am a teen or an adult, and I stay out of prison, my odds of getting raped are relatively low.
On average, I’m taught that walking alone after dark by myself is less than dangerous than it is for my female peers.
If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be questioned.
If I do have children but I do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be questioned.
If I have children and I do care for them, I’ll be praised even if my care is only marginally competent.
If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
If I seek political office, my relationship with my children or who I deem to take care of them will more often not be scrutinized by the press.
My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious the position, the more this is true.
When i seek out “the person in charge", it is likely that they will be someone of my own sex. The higher the position, the more often this is true.
As a child, chances are I am encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones. (Nobody’s going to ask if I’m upset because I’m menstruating.)
I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.
If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is little to no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability.
My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.
If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. The same goes for other expensive merchandise.
If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am over-weight, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than over-weight women do.
If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”
Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment.
On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
On average, I will have the privilege of not knowing about my male privilege.
And lastly, I am taken as a more credible feminist than my female peers, despite the fact that the feminist movement is not liberating to my sex.
I’ve always thought Cap’s uniform in Avengers was cheesy looking, but never tried to identify what made it so bad. I recently watched the movie again, and decided that it is truly horrifying to the point where it deserve it’s own post. I can no longer remain silent!
Here’s the breakdown of what makes this suit the worst uniform ever produced by the MCU:
It’s immediately obvious that this uniform is based off of his USO costume rather than the functional uniform Steve wore in WW2. It lacks a gun holster (I get that he’s not technically in a war any longer, but not including it in the design means this is a (weird) decision SHIELD made for Cap rather than a decision Steve made for himself). The thick, durable cargo has been traded in for what looks like a skin tight, semi-stretchy material. And the hard armour that once protected his torso (AKA where all the squishy organs are) has been replaced by what looks like not very hard foam, like you’d see in a child’s costume. The harness to hold his shield on his back has also been removed (Sorry, cap, you’ll just have to hold it!)
That’s the practical stuff, but the aesthetics are just as puzzling.
There are are FIVE exposed zippers (not counting the one for his crotch) 4 of which serve no functional purpose and I’m convinced are only there because they are based on some fanart Coulon did when he went through a punk phase in middle school, and seeing it on the real cap was too tempting to resist.
Yeah, thanks for that.
If you look closely the construction of the uniform doesn’t even look well made as some of the seams aren’t sewn straight.
We then come to this bizarre flap thing, which puckers up a bit as if it’s held up by velcro. I can appreciate this velcro/zipper combo makes going to the bathroom easier, but having the flap pop up so much makes it look like it’d be sooo easy for an enemy to grab and yank open. The exposed zipper seems like it’s there to taunt them to do just that (like a roadmap on how to remove his clothes).
Then there are the boot’s which add bulk to the calves, distorting the shape of the leg. When paired with the bright red color moves the visual weight to his feet (rather than the thighs and butt where it belongs).
Not to mention they have an overall cheesy space look that reminds me of Marty Mcfly’s “future”
Nikes with the self tying laces.
The material and amped up vivid colors are reminiscent of pjs or worse…
(I’m an trekkie since way back when, but the point stands)
Last but not least, the helmet. Rather than being completely removable with a military looking chin strap we get this:
Also, the “A” has been changed to helvetica BOLD now, for no other reason than the designer hates me personally.
Let’s face it, no one likes the helmet. It has to be there because it’s technically part of the uniform, but we’re all just waiting for that moment 10 minutes into the fight where it gets ripped off, so we can enjoy the rest of Chris Evan’s pretty face for the remainder of the movie. We certainly don’t want it bungied to the back of his neck.
But since that is the case we have to deal with this:
There’s nothing that quite says hero of legend like a hoodie. Not to mention Steve’s mask is hard when he wears it, but when he pulls it away from his face it turns into a completely flexible material! Did they think we wouldn’t catch that?? Even the CW has the good sense to make the flash’s mask a semi-flexible leather. I expect more from a multi-million dollar franchise.
Also I can’t help but notice the flash manages to pull off the hoodie better than cap (possible cause he’s a 22-year-old intern and not a 95-year-old soldier).
I just want to take a moment to give a round of applause for this guy who went out of his way to provide a public service for the rest of us (at great personal risk) when he ripped that thing off Steve’s neck. And the hoodie/helmet was no more!
In conclusion, (and bless you if you’ve made it this far) this suit was a tragic misstep in almost every conceivable way. It’s only redeemable quality (the fact that it hugs Chris’ ass a little tighter than the others) is negated by the overall strategic and aesthetic failings.
When Avengers first came out I heard several people say how “apple pie” and “cheesy” they thought cap was (stuff I don’t hear nearly as much anymore). One has to wonder how much the visuals affected the general audience’s overall opinion of cap. Did their minds draw the conclusion of cheesey costume=cheese character? Food for thought.
(I spent hours longer on this than I meant to. I hope someone enjoys it.)
This is magical, your work has been a gift to fankind.
It looks like that the suits after the suit from the Avengers look closer to the suit Steve designed for himself in WWII. After the Avengers, he probably was like “No, I’m designing all my suits from now on. I don’t care. I can make it functional.”
I agree! I think he sketched his own designs after the avengers one. The Winter Soldier stealth suit is universally acknowledged as the best. I think it was Steve’s answer to a functional suit that isn’t “old fashioned”. He even voiced that he thought the flag was out of style.
I hear a lot of people say he should go back to that one, but I disagree. It’s the best aesthetically, but after everything that happened with working for shield that had secret connections to hydra all along, the idea of “stealth” is not something Steve wants to imbody. I think his return to full flag colors is him embracing what he needs to be (a symbol of hope) for a new generation.
I also made a post about Steve’s uniform a while back, and yeah, Steve’s Avengers uniform is definitely the worst. It’s very obvious from his body language that he himself doesn’t feel comfortable wearing it (photo on the right):
As OP points out, Steve’s Avengers uniform has that sleak cartoon-superhero-spandex
look but is actually useless in combat. It doesn’t offer any protection or webbing for carrying extra gear (apart from the Rob
Liefeld-esque proliferation of tiny belt pouches, which are just ?!?!?!?!). The thigh zippers
would be inaccessible if Steve chose to carry a sidearm like he did in
CA:TFA, and the uniform doesn’t even come with a harness for Steve’s
shield.
The issues with Steve’s Avengers uniform are most clearly demonstrated in the S.H.I.E.L.D. armoury. Notice that every other set of gear in the room is black-on-black, whereas Steve’s uniform stands out like a star-spangled peacock:
This is not a uniform for fighting in.
And you know what? It isn’t supposed to be. The bad design, the uselessness, is absolutely deliberate. S.H.I.E.L.D. didn’t want a supersoldier in The Avengers. If they did, they would
have given Steve a standardised uniform, same as Natasha and Clint, who
both wear black while working for S.H.I.E.L.D. – or like the stealth uniform Steve wore in CA:TWS.
Steve’s Avengers uniform
is deliberately designed
to turn him into a living propaganda poster. It’s
not a uniform for guerilla fighting behind enemy lines; it’s for looking
good on TV. Fury knew that some day in the near future, aliens would invade the USA and S.H.I.E.L.D. would be unable to hush it up, and he wanted to rally troops and avoid a mass panic by putting Steve on a stage in front of a news camera and do the old SSR song-and-dance.
That’s why the uniform sucks. It’s actually a dance costume.
