Not a tumblr I’ll be following because it’s too enfuriating, but it’s nice to have something to point to when people say, as they inevitably will, “omg what has Dan Savage ever done? He is the awesomest!”
As someone who has struggled with life-long depression, and other problems that cause a depletion of spoons, one of the ways that I’ve shamed myself most is with this idea of productivity: feeling low when I believe I haven’t been productive enough. And I hear this a lot from other people too, especially people with disabilities.
The notion of productivity is rooted in capitalist (and, it follows, ableist) ideas about an individual’s value. It is important that we be “productive”, not only when we are at work, but at all times. And what does it mean to be productive? When we are hard on ourselves for not being productive enough, what do we mean? We can try to define what productivity means for ourselves on an individual level, but I don’t believe we can separate it from the aforementioned capitalist and ableist ideas. Especially for those of us struggling with disabilities, I think this is one of the biggest, most common, and frequently unchallenged ways of internalizing ableism and perpetuating it on ourselves and others.
Defining what productivity means might be easier if we look at what it isn’t. Sitting online all day, playing games, watching television, watching movies, sleeping, relaxing, doing anything passive – I’ve seen all of these things frequently branded as “unproductive” when people criticize themselves (or others) for how they use their non-working/unstructured time. Things that don’t have a clearly defined goal. Do you have a huge to-do list that doesn’t include taking time out of the day and being kind to yourself? Do you typically not cross off most of the things on that list, and then feel upset over it, like you’ve wasted your day?
Productivity, for you, might mean engaging in active hobbies or running errands. It might mean working non-stop at multiple jobs, constant research, having several projects on the go, organizing and initiating rallies, or conducting one workshop after another. Being “productive” never includes self care. I see many creative people who are hard on themselves for not producing enough, especially if their reason for not doing so involves mental health struggles. As if we are mini assembly lines. Subconsciously comparing ourselves to mass production factories, which we will never be able to imitate because of the limitations of being a single person.
Capitalism has seeped into our lives so deeply that we don’t even realize what we’re doing when we talk about wanting to be more productive or shame ourselves for not being productive enough. We forget to take time to relax and take care of ourselves because we are so concerned with meeting quotas in our heads for productivity. Do your self-care rituals stand in opposition to your ideas of what productivity looks like? Why isn’t it productive to take care of ourselves?
Let’s stop pushing ourselves beyond our limits. Let’s fight back against this notion of productivity, against the idea that our value lies in what we “get done” every day. Let’s start working on loving ourselves as we are and giving ourselves some breathing room.
All of this.
Work to live, don’t live to work.
this is so, so pertinent to me.
This is so relevant to my life. I try really hard to allow myself to have time to do things that are not “productive”, but it’s hard. I have so many things I need to do that I always feel bad when I take time away from that to do stuff that’s just for me.
“I’m sorry, bisexual activists, but you’re doing it all wrong. Instead of berating me for my alleged bi-phobia—and if I’m the enemy, you’re in real trouble—berate your closeted compatriots. If they all came out tomorrow, you could put an end to bi-phobia, take over the LGBT movement, and kick my ass out of it.”—
I took the documents down to the court today to be filed. Thankfully because of my low income I was able to get a fee waiver (it’s about $350 to change your name in California, plus $25 each for any copies you need afterwards, and all those costs are waived with this fee waiver), so I didn’t have to pay anything there. Did have to pay $60 to run a four-week ad in a local paper announcing the name change, and I’ll have to pay something for the DMV eventually (I think it’s like $25 for a new license), but at least the really expensive part is not an issue.
The earliest court date they had available was Thursday August 11th, which is about six weeks away (it would have to be over four weeks away anyway, since it has to be after the ad runs). I do work on Thursdays, but not until 1.45pm and the hearing is at 8.30am, so I don’t even have to ask to change my schedule or anything.
I do wish I’d done this before I got this new job, because now in addition to the DMV, social security, bank, credit cards, and whatever else I’m forgetting at the moment, I have to contact the HR department at work and have them change my records there. Once everything is official, I’m going to call HR and see if I can just scan and email a copy of my new driver’s license or something (the HR department is not at my location, so I can’t just go there in person).
Anyway, it’s all such a huge hassle and expense (even with the fee waiver), which is the main reason I’ve been dragging my feet for so long, but it will be good to have it all done, especially having an ID I can show to people without feeling weird (not only does my license have my old name on it (obviously), but the picture is over ten years old).
I’m not sure if I’m going to change my gender marker with the DMV or not, since I can’t change it with the state or with social security without surgery, and I’ve heard that if you have F on one and M on the other it can cause problems. However, I can get it changed with the DMV if I want to, just have to have my doctor at the LAGLC fill out a form saying my gender and demeanour are male (doesn’t say anything about surgery).
1. I seem to be a spammer-magnet lately. I get all excited about new followers and it turns out they are only spammers. ;_;
2. I saw my grandpa today. He came by to give me a birthday card & money. It was weird, because if I didn’t know from my mom that my grandparents had got the coming-out letter I sent them, I would never have known. Totally acting like nothing changed. I had not heard anything from them or seen them at all since I sent the letter, so I really didn’t know what to expect, didn’t know if they even would be acknowledging my birthday or what. So the card was addressed to my old name, and that’s what my grandpa called me, which grates, but at least now I know they haven’t cut me off financially.
In addition, here where already most people have passports to travel up north to Malaysia, passports are still $100 each and valid for only 5 years. So that could also be a factor disincentivising or barring people in the USA from having passports maybe?
Yup, passports are expensive and need to be renewed after a certain time in the US, too (though I think it’s longer than five years…yeah, just checked and it’s ten years, though only five if you’re a child). Rates recently went up and it’s now $135 for a new adult passport and $110 to renew. You can also get a special passport card good for only Canada and Mexico (which until recently you did not need a passport to visit at all), which costs “only” $55 for new and $30 to renew.
Since passports are not used in the US as a primary form of ID, the only reason to get one is if you are going to be travelling internationally. And since they’re expensive, there’s no reason to get one unless you are actually planning a trip. And since the US is not small and surrounded by other countries like, say, most of Europe, it’s a huge expense to travel somewhere internationally, thus is makes no sense for people to just have a passport. It’s a specific thing to get if you have the money and time to make use of it.
“According to most reports, about 30% of Americans have Passports, compared to 75% in the United Kingdom and 60% in Canada. Consider that up until 2007 when a Passport became required to visit our neighbors to the North and South, the number was only 20%.”
PS I’m one of the proud 30%. Haven’t used it since 2007 when I studied abroad in Germany though. But once I get money in my pocket, it’s back to Germany.
1) Due to geography, it’s much easier to do international travel in Europe than it is in the US. It makes sense that you’d have a passport living in Europe when you can drive across multiple European countries than in less time than it takes to cross some US states.
2) Considering how little vacation time most Americans get compared to Europeans, is it any wonder they don’t travel much? Especially when it comes to international travel, which is more expensive and more time-consuming from the US than it is within Europe?
Seriously. I love how this is framed as a choice, and often a sign of US Americans being xenophobic or whatever, but it’s just really not comparable at all. It’s like arguing that USians in the north east part of the country like to visit other states more than people in the western half of the country, when it’s actually due to the fact that there are a ton of tiny states there and it’s easy to jaunt off to a different state to go shopping or whatever, whereas when you live in a large state, unless you live right on the border, it’s not really a thing you can do. I can’t drive to Nevada or Arizona and come back the same day unless I turn around the minute I get there. Forget about Oregon.
And yeah, I am actually close-ish to Mexico. I could drive down there in a few hours. But I don’t have a car, or a passport, or the time or money to do anything once I get there. None of this means I wouldn’t love to travel internationally (or even within the US), but realistically it’s not going to happen.
There is nothing to be “proud” about in having a passport, as if people who don’t should be ashamed, and that’s a really fucked up way to frame it.
This is the self-appointed savior of the queers? I still like some of her early songs, and I’m not going to stop listening to them (though I have made a decision not to listen to any of her newer music, including her new album), but I just cannot stand her as a person. Really, really cannot.
“Earlier in the day, Glee cheerleader Dianna Agron was seen covering up her incredible body as she experienced the chilly British weather. The Brit actress, 25, was clearly not used to the UK climate as she donned a shocking orange granny cardigan and a long skirt as she left for a sold out show in Manchester. Her stunning looks have become famous around the world due to her role as head cheerleader Quinn Fabray in the smash hit show. A fan said: ‘Everyone was really excited when the cast left the hotel, but a lot of the dads were disappointed in Dianna’s outfit. ‘They were expecting her to wear something a bit more revealing, but she still looked amazing.’
Another cast member who did not look her stunning best was fellow Cheerio member Heather Morris. She created waves after her character Brittany Pierce aped her namesake Britney Spears as she donned a snake on an episode of the show, and is also famed for her bikini photo shoots. But she looked surprising dowdy after appearing with her hair raked back and without make-up. Ironically the 24-year-old Californian is a Celebrity Style Ambassador for FLIRT! Cosmetics, an Estee Lauder cosmetics line.”—
All from this article in the Daily Mail about Glee last night, am I the only one who finds this really rude and derogatory towards them?! Especially as it’s written by a guy.
Remember, ladies: you have to look sexy to some unspecified heterosexual male standards all the time. None of this “dressing for the weather,” no “being warm” bullshit. Dead of winter? Bikini. Don’t feel like makeup? Too bad, didn’t anyone tell you you don’t have the right to decide what goes onto your face?
Late last week, Thomas James Ball reached his breaking point. Driven to desperation by a system that bankrupted him and destroyed his family, Ball walked up to the main door of the Keene County, New Hampshire courthouse, doused himself with gasoline, and lit himself ablaze.
Hardly anyone seems to have noticed.
Conversely, when a 26-year old Tunisian man lit himself on fire a few months ago after police confiscated the fruits and vegetables he had been selling without a proper permit, it launched a wave of revolution across the Middle East.
People were shocked into taking action… protests and riots swept the region and one regime after another crumbled.
Rather than sparking an “American spring” and shocking US citizens into taking their country back, though, Mr. Ball’s act of self-immolation seems to have been largely ignored. There has been scant coverage (and scant is being extremely generous) of Mr. Ball in the mainstream media, and what little coverage there is generally discredits the man as a troublemaker.
This is how the system’s gatekeepers have been so adroit at maintaining the status quo– by suppressing dissent, marginalizing the detractors, and distracting the populace with meaningless, irrelevant drivel.
[Trigger Warning for multiple topics]
“The lack of coverage of this man’s self-immolation, juxtaposed against the massive response to Mohamed Bouazizi’s, certainly says a lot about the American Media, suppressed dissent, and perhaps American apathy or distractedness. But, even if one agrees with his general anti-government beliefs, and can even see how his tactics might conceivably be justified, it should be said that this man should by no means be made a martyr or a hero for the radical left. Reading over his “Last Statement,” one realizes quickly that this man’s radical rejection of the State arises from a repugnant ideology defined by antifeminism and misogyny: essentially, the state has been corrupted by feminists, leading to a misandrist State that discriminates against men on the basis of being men. He claims, for example, that, “Labeling someone’s action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930’s.” He tells us that, “Feminists had always claimed that when women took over, we would have a kinder, gentler, more nurturing world. After 36 million arrests and 72 million evictions what we got was Joe Stalin.” Thomas Ball’s attack might have been against “the system,” but reading his last statement reveals clearly that that is not where his hatred lies. Ball did not hate the system “as such”: Ball hated women and feminism’s attempt to empower them.
Ball’s logic in arguing his hatred of the state expresses a kind of sexist, distorted (and distorting) reasoning that is quintessentially patriarchal. Typical of patriarchy, the insidiousness of the methods lies in their cleverness. He decries feminism as so much playing-the-victim by figuring men as the victim of feminism. At the same time, he attempts to ennoble this reactionary indignation toward feminism by implying that, moral pillar that he is, his real concern is not for men, not for himself, but for “the women and children” that have suffered the worst of feminism’s ramifications:
“what makes them [the Office of Violence Against Women] so [sic] uniques is their anger towards men, any man. They are so twisted in their hatred of men that they are positively scary. And it is not what they are doing to men that makes them frightening. You would expect that. No, it is what they are doing to the women and children that makes them so twisted.”
At another point he states: “Your wife and kids are Collateral Damage in the war against you, the man in the family. For 25 years these feminists at OVAW have been willing to sacrifice the women and children to get you.”
“There really is a government pogrom against men,” he claims, and says that “[a]s long as OVW exists then the government is at war with men. As long as there is a pogrom against men, then women and children are going to end up as collateral damage.” And, of course, feminism is to blame.
But this reasoning is pure garbage. It is the patriarchal logic we have seen throughout history, the kind perhaps best exemplified in the cult of domesticity that pervaded the Victorian period and the family life of the 1950’s American Middle Class: “I shall control you in order to protect you, I will oppress you for your own good.” It is the “White Man’s Burden” reframed in terms of gender. But the problem is not a “war against men,” it is not actions taken to curtail domestic violence. One need only glance over the statistics offered by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence to see that domestic violence, not legislation against it, is the primary threat to women and children (and to see that feminisms are needed as much now as ever, everywhere). No, the problem is not legislation against domestic violence, but a culture that compels men toward violence, that teaches them to disavow this compulsion, that degrades, dehumanizes, and devalues women, that teaches men to hate women, that teaches women to hate themselves. And, although Ball offers the pretense of understanding feminism in his statement, citing the likes of Angela Davis, Betty Friedan, and Susan Brownmiller, even (snarkily) acknowledging thirdwave feminism, a little scrutiny of his reasoning reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of feminism and the goal of women’s empowerment, of patriarchy, misogyny, and sexism, of the culture of violence against women out of which thinking like his arises.
So, to the leftists who would lionize this man: reconsider that impulse. To do so, to overlook or omit the ill-formed ideology that drove his acts, would be an affront to women everywhere, and in that way would ultimately undermine any revolutionary gains that might be made from his example. Compare the responses to his act and Bouazizi’s in in order to reflect upon the media and American culture if you like.* Respect his tactical audacity if you want. But don’t make a martyr of this man. In short, he made his decision for the wrong reasons.
*Or, consider an even more complicated juxtaposition: Mohamed Bouazizi; Thomas Ball; and the seemingly little-discussed fact that multiple women in certain parts of the world have already resorted to self-immolation in the face of oppressive conditions. Worse, that they are choosing to do so in increasing numbers. If we consider Ball’s case largely ignored, then what more drastic adjective must be applied to these women?
What’s more, consider what all three of these cases have in common: capital. Bouazizi burned himself in protest of the confiscation of the wares and equipment he relied upon for his income, and in protest of the government office that confiscated. Ball burned himself in response to facing arrest due to back child support, and in response to the governmental policy that (he perceived) led to his potential incarceration. And, in the article linked to above, one finds the same smoking gun: “for [Ahmed Shah] Wazir [a doctor in charge of a burn ward in Afghanistan who treats women that have self-immolated], the cause of all the problems faced by the desperate women he treats is the feeble state of the Afghan economy and inequalities within extended families who typically live under one roof.” Wazir puts it most succinctly: “People say the problem is violence, but I think that is really secondary to the problem of poverty.” The conditions that unify these three examples of self-immolation are material. Considered as a superstructural manifestation of those conditions, we see these self-immolations are the latest horrific byproduct of the socio-political relations arranged by contemporary capitalism. The juxtaposition of the three therefore reveals the more appropriate target for our anger, for our efforts at resistance.”
[image: picture of breasts pre-surgery. text: “To me, top surgery is the same as breast implants. Whether it’s gender roles or the “perfect body,” our culture is making people hate their bodies.”]
Oh my god why is this going un-critiqued on my dashboard?
This is why I give all cis people the side-eye forever.
PRO-TIP: if you don’t actually experience dysphoriaaren’t even fucking trans*, you don’t get to tell those of us who *are* what we’re feeling about our bodies. Not even if we try to do something about it by getting surgery (implants or top surgery or anything else—seriously).
I didn’t read it that way, to be honest. I saw it as a trans man who was okay having breasts and being a man. However, I’m beginning to realize that was a really horrible analysis. D:
If this was from someone cis, they really don’t understand shit. -_-
Even if the secret-maker was trans, that does not mean it’s okay for them to make blanket assumptions about the reasons why people want any sort of surgery on their chest, whether top surgery or breast implants.
I doubt I will ever have top surgery, because it’s very expensive, but I would certainly love to have a flat chest. I have no desire to have children, and thus don’t need breasts for nursing, and they have the same amount of sensation as my arm or my stomach or any other random body part, so it’s not like there’s any other use for them. Mainly what they do is get sweaty underneath, which is a pain, especially when they make big sweat spots on my shirt.
And you know what? To me, if I had the money, that is a totally acceptable reason to get rid of them. They have no benefit, and they get sweat all over the place. Why SHOULDN’T I want to be rid of them? Please tell me a real reason that’s not just “but you should love your body!!!” Because if changing your body in any way is bad I hope you don’t have any piercings or tattoos or cut your hair or anything like that. Probably you shouldn’t wear clothes, either, unless you live somewhere really cold.
In conclusion, STOP POLICING OTHER PEOPLE’S BODIES.
LOL THIS IS SO DUMB REALLY. She’s not talking literally. She just wants a man who is TOUGH. -_________________________________________________- It’s just a bit of crude humor in a silly pop song.
It’s not though really. She explicitly describes a man with a “vag” as not being a real man. Whether it’s metaphorical or not, it indicates that no real man would have a “vag”
I hate how people I know IRL don’t get that part. Whenever I think something trans-related is offensive they’re all “omg it’s nbd y u mad.”
Like, this song is so horrible and anti-trans and not okay… whether she meant it to be anti -trans or not… it’s still really hurtful/offensive.
God, I just read the lyrics. That is fucking horrible, jesus fucking christ.
(IMO anyone who uses the word “mangina” full stop about someone else needs a punch in the face.)
This should be “you know you’re a decent human being when”
Seriously. Even if you don’t get the trans stuff, it’s a fucking misogynistic song, people. I’m sure she didn’t mean it to be anti-trans, because I seriously doubt trans guys are even on her radar, but there’s no getting around the misogyny.
(And. I didn’t lose respect for her, because idk why I would have any respect for some popstar in the first place. What on earth is she supposed to have done to earn my respect?)
So, femmeftm reblogs a picture of someone who explicitly says they are neither male nor female in the accompanying photo description, and a cursory glance at the person’s tumblr makes it clear that they were not assigned female at birth, meaning there is no way they belong on a site called anything ftm (or at least not when the photo is reblogged without commentary that makes it clear they are not ftm). I sent a message to femmeftm telling them so. I was not rude. I did not attack them. I did not assume they had done so out of malice, but rather out of carelessness and the assumption that all trans people who look like the OP are FAAB.
So of course I get this in response, saying I’m rude and attacking them for simply pointing out their mistake and telling them they should be more careful when they reblog. Ugh, and there is already one person giving femmeftm backpats for “standing up for themselves” against my meanie mean attack.
Seriously. If I thought you were doing it out of malice, I would not bother trying to correct you! Why is that so hard for some people to grasp?
If you follow the GLBT discussion at all, no doubt you’ve heard the “is being gay/bi/pan/etc. a choice” debate. Those who support the GLBT community (read: decent human beings) will often argue vehemently that it is not a choice and therefore the GLBT community should not be treated poorly.
However, simply participating in this discussion hurts us more than it helps us. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the bigots are right and that being gay is a choice (even though it’s not). What happens then? If people make the choice to be gay, does that mean homosexuality should be outlawed? Of course not. It’s a total non sequitur. People make choices all the time, but we don’t tie them to fences and leave them to die, and we don’t take away their right to get married or to adopt children.
How does this discussion hurt us? By arguing that it is not a choice, you are essentially conceding that being gay is immoral. You are saying “gay people have no control over what they do, so you can’t blame them for their actions.” In other words, you are treating homosexuality as a mental illness, and using that mental illness as an excuse for committing the heinous crime of loving someone. And as anyone with a beating heart knows, there is nothing wrong with being gay. So don’t apologize. Ever.
You know what was not necessary? The aside saying that of course being gay is totally not a choice and implication that only anti-gay bigots think it is.
SOME QUEER PEOPLE CONSIDER THEMSELVES QUEER BY CHOICE.
Stop erasing them.
Like, seriously, how did this post just do what it’s urging people not to do? The OP says “it doesn’t matter if it’s a choice or not, so don’t get into this argument” and then turns right around and says “but it’s totally not a choice”.
I have a problem with Donald Glover. It revolves around that whole rape-as-a-punchline thing he does. I’m sure even as I type this that next to no one will give a shit and it’ll ultimately be swept under the rug as the Donald Glover Dick-Sucking Bandwagon rolls on by, but it…
I thought I was the only one who noticed, let alone cared. When Glover joked on Twitter about Jim Parsons raping him, I was done.
Go read the full post - it’s fantastic!
Oh, this makes me sad. :( I liked Donald Glover just from Community, but I didn’t know anything about him personally other than that a lot of people I knew were fans of him, but between those two things, I had a good impression of him overall.
Sometimes I wish celebs and authors and people like that would just stay off the internet so I could continue on in happy ignorance of what asshats they are.