suzy-x:

Frankly I’m bored of trite articles by trite white women and trite shows about trite white women and their trite straight sex lives. But now that they get PAID and CELEBRATED to write trite shit does that mean feminizm is over???

I’m revisiting this because I got a call this morning from folks casting for GIRLS. I had applied to be an extra on this show last summer, and I’ve been called back this week to play the “friend at a housewarming party.”

I suppose this is out of reparations to all POC for their absurd erasure and exclusion of them on their previous season. But you see, they’ve still fucked up; I’m not just a POC, I’m a white-passing one at that. I’m their safest bet, the one who white girls actually feel less guilty around because I’m not always so “in [their] face” about race. I’m not sure how I feel about doing this, besides the fact that I’ll get paid well and that after this part I can join the union. Even though I act part-time, I’m not someone who actually watches TV for these reasons (besides Parks & Rec), and I’ve still never seen this show. I don’t know I don’t know. I’m just curious.

In “negating” or “neutralizing” identity, those who are markedly “other”— brown and feminine, respectively— must subdue or suppress all the ways that they are markedly brown and/or feminine in order to properly negate *all* identity?

You ever think about how the same thing is required in order to assimilate, even survive under white supremacy and patriarchy? How white maleness is regarded as the neutral, the default?

I think about it all the time. I can’t afford not to, in a world that doesn’t want me to survive, especially not as me.

There is a bar in Williamsburg called “Privilege.” I think some people need to sit the fuck down in there and examine it a little, yeah?

If there is anything I have learned in the past few years that I am grateful for, it’s the constant reminder that coming from a marginalized position in society does not equate to coming from a position of moral purity. I could never absolve myself of that much responsibility in my life without thinking twice, without thinking of others. Power is five-way intersection, not a one-way street.

lati-negros:

With the virtual uses and changing of language online it’s important we note how we are using the @ symbol in our name and in the things we are creating and writing. For many of you this is “common knowledge,” but the reality is that some folks have not ever really thought about why this symbol is important.

We think the @ symbol is important because it represents gender neutrality, gender inclusion, and disrupts the misogynistic ways language privileges men, masculinity, and things that are considered “male.”As many Latin@ scholars have stated and argued, especially Anzaldua, “Language is a male discourse” (p. 54, Borderlands/La Frontera). In the Spanish language, grammatically, if there is one man present in a room or area filled with women (a man of any age, a boy, a child, etc.) instead of using the “feminine” form of the language often using an “a” (i.e. una or nosotras) a masculine “o” is used (i.e. nosotros or the absence of the “a” such as un).

Utilizing the @ in this way challenges these grammatical “rules” that are embedded in a legacy of privileging men, masculinity and maleness. It is also part of a legacy that includes and recognizes our gender queer and trans* community members versus erasing them by constantly using a language embedded in a gender binary/dichotomy.

The @ is useful not only in discussing Latinidad, but also discussing how Blackness and African identity intersects as well. Often when we see terms discussing LatiNegr@s in various ways and using other self-identifiers they are still using a masculine version of “Afro” such as “Afro-Latin@”. This is a preference by some, and I’d like to argue this is also a way of privileging men and masculinity in the English language. Afr@Latin@ is a valid term and form to use when discussing our identities as well. Just as AfraLatina is valid. Why must the African in us also remain masculine?

The questions still exist of how to actually speak the @ sign and this has yet to really be resolved. How have others negotiated this?

(written by Bianca)

I had a discussion with some other queer Latin@ folks at last weekend’s Pioneer Valley Zine Fest. I pronounced it like “Latin-oa” whereas someone else pronounced it “Latin-ao” (which I actually kind of like because it reminds me of the Cuban dialect). I want a big conference to happen in which we can all settle this once and for all!

becauseproperteaistheft:

rich/ white people learn about/ study/ interact with other cultures for their own amusement/ ‘education’.  poor/ poc learn about/ study/ interact with rich/ white culture to survive.

singingoverbones:

Cookie monster, (n), a person whose motives behind their efforts to be allies to marginalized people are transparent. One who wants “all of the cookies.”

sylviaandherfigtree:

fatwasandfanboys:

dear cis hetero white guys,

don’t date women of color if you don’t respect women of color. period.

s

i want to knowingly reblog this but i don’t want to let white queers to feel validated and like they’re getting let off the hook

i see you

I changed the cover of my new perzine.

Message me if you’d like a downloadable version, no set cost but donations would be appreciated!

YES

racialicious:

Daria: Look Jodie, I’m too smart and too sensitive to live in a world like ours, at a time like this, with a sister like mine. Maybe I do miss out on stuff, but this attitude is what works for me now.

Jodie: Then you’ll understand what works for me now. At home, I’m Jodie–I can say and do whatever feels right. But at school I’m The Queen of the Negros, the perfect African-American teen, the role-model for all the other African-American teens at Lawndale. Oops! Where’d they go? Believe me, I’d like to be more like you.

Daria, in one of her rare moments of sympathy, gets it, because she’s not a bad person and she is smart. I am not trying to single out all the white feminists out there, but I am calling out all you Darias: can you understand where Jodie is coming from?

— I enjoyed Lois Payne’s analysis of the racial divide within feminism through the lens of Daria you haven’t read it yet, please do!

This article is soooooo good. I bought the whole series on DVD a year ago, and in watching it as an adult I realize how much more I respect Jodie. She’s much more perceptive and less bratty than Daria— who usually doesn’t do anything unless her parents pay her off— and the racial politics of it all become really apparent in the “Gifted” episode. It makes me think about the unbearable whiteness of teen angst, how the characterization of the jaded adolescent varies across ethnic lines, and how even the sentiment of being “jaded” is somewhat informed by whiteness.

YES. Because you know, if the dominant cultural narrative about riot grrrl doesn’t recognize that we exist, then I guess we probably don’t

leonineantiheroine:

Sorting my preliminary thoughts out.

I don’t even know if the categories are even fair or relevant as they might all bleed in to each other. 

Also while I use POC, I’m mainly interested in Blackness and how white-identified is used against other Black people. And I’m not talking about people who do shit for money and to build a career. 

Circumstances where the term white-identifying is used:

1. POC 1 believes that POC 2 is talking bullshit, not seeing the point of view of another POC—could be POC 1 or maybe POC 3 and 4 :) / POC 2 could see this as a difference of opinion and feels attacked because it’s merely a difference of opinion. In case 1, POC 2 is a conscious POC.
2. POC 2 defends white people in the face of racism
3. POC 2 denies racism is happening
4. POC 2 denigrates members of the same race on the basis of white supremacist ideas.

I think when a POC calls another POC white-identified during Tumblr discussions of racism, that this charge is not very useful and is simplistic (even though there might be a grain of truth in it). And again yes there are POC whom are arseholes against other POC on the basis of race…

Times I’ve been called “white-identifying”: 1) when I willfully ignored/smoke-screened blatant racism at an event for the sake of assuaging the guilt of white organizers, and 2) when describing my politics as feminist or anarchist. The former was totally called for, I deserved that. The latter? Nah. I can see how the praxis has been dominated by white folks, but these movements have rich histories that involve POC and also supplement anti-racist theory in their analyses of gender and capitalism.

I think the most disorienting, confusing part has been, when called “white-identifying,” it made me question my actual identity as a POC, it made me think I couldn’t call myself one anymore. But it really shouldn’t do such a thing; not when I’ve lived my entire life as a POC, granted a non-black, light-skinned one. I acknowledge my experience is very different and comes with some privilege. But it’s probably more apt to say something like “___ has internalized racism,” “white-sympathizing” or “perpetuating of white supremacy” when we’re talking about POC who defend white supremacist actions/ideas. Whether or not they care is one thing, and it should always be understood as a casualty of growing up in a white supremacist society. But revoking someone’s identity or lived experience because their politics are fucked is another. I worry about the latter.