a lot of ppl seem confused on what cultural appropriation is so lemme break it down
IT IS NOT: enjoying food from another culture, enjoying music from another culture, learning about another culture, or learning another language
IT IS: using another culture as a costume, wearing religious articles as accessories when you are not a follower of that religion, using a race as a mascot, disrespecting religious or cultural practices.
things dependent people do that they literally cannot help:
- ask you to come online and comfort them often
- will agree with you even if they dont actually agree (a lot of lying)
- will do anything to keep you as a friend even if it starts to become so desperate and creepy
- will be very very very hurt if you completely leave them mentally
so dont you dare call someone manipulative for symptoms they cant help.
okay so this post is making me mega uncomfortable
the first and second points like. ok. the first is fair enough if they’re just requesting that you give them some support and you agree to it. the second can develop into something pretty unhealthy but it’s also fairly innocuous.
but do not start me on the third and fourth.
a person can have dependency problems and still be manipulative, and they can have them and NOT be manipulative. manipulation is manipulation regardless of motive.
if someone will ‘do anything to keep you as a friend/keep you around them’, and those anythings include isolating you, sabotaging your other friendships or things you do that don’t involve them, deliberately damaging your self-worth, any other kind of abusive behaviour that they use to make you unable to leave them, that is still manipulative. that is still abusive. you are still 100% within your rights to get the hell out of there.
if someone wants you to care about them and doesn’t care whether that makes you unable to care for yourself, that is still wrong.
it is not your responsibility to stay with a person who is manipulating you or abusing you just so you don’t hurt them. this post feels so much like it’s trying to tell people to just tolerate it, no matter how bad it gets, even if the other person knows what they’re doing but won’t stop. that’s really not okay.
So I was on tumblr with my boyfriend and i saw the quote “Misandry irritates. Misogyny kills.” In response, out loud, I was like, “trueeee”.
My boyfriend in response to me goes, “that is so sexist, you can’t tell me there aren’t women in the world who’s hatred of men is so strong they end up killing.”
It ended up in one of our many debates in which I lost because he’s right. There are a lot of women who’s hatred runs so strong that they will kill a man.
So can someone please explain to me why this quote isn’t sexist, because right now I just feel like I can’t side with feminists. With this quote it seems like whoever came up with this just wanted to paint women with angel wings and halos and men with blood and horns, and to me, that’s not right.
Now prove my boyfriend and I wrong.
There’s a big difference between individual prejudice and systematic oppression. There’s a big difference between random acts of violence that exist in a vacuum and systematic acts of violence.
Imagine that I’m a Yankees fan, and I really hate Red Sox fans. I hate them so much that I want to kill them. That would be a random act of violence that exists in a vacuum. It would not be Yankees Fan Privilege.
When women “hate” men, the worst that happens on a large scale is women staying away from men. If a woman hates men so much that she kills men, it would be similar to the Yankees fan killing the Red Sox fan. It would happen just as much if feminism didn’t exist.
The reason “misogyny kills” is because men are socialized to feel entitled, and because men are socialized to be violent when they don’t get what they want. Society also believes that women are at fault for acts of violence committed against them by men.
leeandlow submitted to medievalpoc:
The Diversity Gap in the highest grossing science fiction and fantasy films. Sad, right? You can see the full study here.
from the infographic:
Among the top 100 domestic grossing films:
- only 8% of films star a protagonist of color
- of the 8 protagonists of color, all are men; 6 are played by Will Smith and 1 is a cartoon character (Aladdin)
- 0% of protagonists are women of color
- 0% of protagonists are LGBTQ
- 1% of protagonists are people with a disability
Wait a mother fucking second. Don’t start this argument with a science fiction fan. In the genre of science fiction you have to spread it much boarder than just science fiction. Because scifi can be anywhere from It’s Alive to Star Wars to Guardians of the Galaxy.
Science fiction deals with race in a way any film in today’s standards can’t even touch.
Star Trek had the first biracial kiss.
Star Wars has employed actors that would have never been able to receive jobs because of height. Lando owned the millennium falcon before Han!
Firefly the first mate is an African American female!
You can not speak of science fiction without speaking of how ground breaking it can be in the space genre. So don’t think a chart means you truly know the facts when it seems you believe you can lump over a thousand different movies into one genre of just science fiction.
I could say a lot of things here. I could try to explain to you what a “percentage” is, and how listing 5 casting decisions you consider ‘enough’ diversity don’t make much, if any, impact on the overall numbers. Especially ones from forty plus years ago.
I could point out that you’re talking about TV shows as well, which aren’t a part of what this chart ^^ is measuring, which is the Top 100 Domestic Grossing Sci Fi and Fantasy Films, which is clearly states at the top.
I could try and interpret the, uh, sentence: “In the genre of science fiction you have to spread it much boarder than just science fiction.” as meaning analyzing genres beyond Science Fiction, like Fantasy, which is included in the chart. Once again, big block letters “& FANTASY” at the top of the chart. Not only that, if you want to “spread it boarder”, the article already has that covered:
This is not an isolated incident, but a wide reaching societal problem.
Read more Diversity Gap studies on:
But the real gist of what you are saying is that I or anyone who criticizes the SFF genre for lacking racial diversity isn’t a real fan, and that we should be satisfied with whatever bit parts (Lando and Ewoks?? Are you kidding??) and token representation actors of color are cast in.
If you ask me, “real fans” of the genre believe that it is capable of better, and can survive and thrive on our critical consumption of it. If the sciences exist because of inquiry, research, and analysis, why wouldn’t science fiction do the same? After all, if something is to become a reality, it must first be imagined.
They tried to use Firefly, a show that uses an entire culture as a backdrop for a space drama and two characters with the surname Tam who are not Chinese, to tell people that we should be grateful for scraps from Joss Whedon, who is not actually a feminist writer or producer. Who are they kidding?
1. I am a huge fan of Firefly/Serenity
2. I agree with this so hard it needs an onomatopoeia
And that’s how you consume media critically.