In her jeremiad against trigger warnings, which has received accolades from academics as famous as Jack Halberstam, Jenny Jarvie claims that to employ the language of triggering in college classrooms, we are “structuring public life around the most fragile personal sensitivities.” Jarvie foresees that such a gesture would “only restrict all our horizons,” but, I can’t help but think that the opposite effect would come about: to consider the needs of those most vulnerable first and foremost would foster all lives, not just those Jarvie sees as strong or fit. I think we must protect those who are fragile. To protect the weakest or frailest among us would mean that we would all be safe. Trigger warnings don’t shut down discourse. Rather, they open it up: a trigger warning is a recognition that survivors exist and an invitation for them to participate in conversations on their own terms. It is a gesture that acknowledges (“I see you”) and promises at least an attempt to be an ally (“I will try not to harm you”). To work on ending harm to others - what could be a better use of public life than that?
i m a g i n e
Today feels like an excellent day for outlining or planning a creative idea you have put off for a long time.
I think we all should do that, today. What do you think?
I am doing it, I am putting together a presentation and the first chapter of a story I have wanted to write for a long time, a genre and format I have never tried before.
I humbly suggest those of you who have something like this you have been putting off join me in this thread with a note about your project. Seriously, today is the day to do it. Let’s all start our own project that we have been putting off or abandoned. Would love to hear a bit about your plans and progress!
This map should be included in every history book.
This is why I don’t like the term Native American or even like Indigenous People. It cancels the numerous different groups of people that lived here
Don’t forget this.
The reason that pre-colonized American history is taught in a short breath, in a way that is totally unlike how European history is taught (“yah there were these tribes who lived off the land and were so noble and primitive until Christopher Columbus came and things got interesting” vs. “There were complex cultures and different people in different areas who traded and fought exactly like what was going on across the Atlantic at the time, so for example there were extensive trade routes between A and B in this territory while X and Y made an alliance to unite against Z, and then this important ruler, inventor, artist lived… etc etc etc”) is racism, pure and simple. Anyone who says otherwise (PARTICULARLY if they claim that nothing interesting was going on or try to state that the Americas were purely “primitive” or lesser in some fashion” they are either lying or terribly misinformed.
This is why “Native American” is not a one-size-fits-all banner. This is why you sound just as stupid saying someone was or is “Cherokee or Sioux, or Mohawk or whatever” as you sound saying “They were English, or German, or Irish or whatever”. They are distinct cultures who lived in distinct areas and had disparate histories. And, due to horrendous colonialism and blatant white washing, these are repressed histories.
So do your homework, especially if you live in the Americas and are from a background that at any point contained immigrants (and don’t you look at me and say you’re “Just American” because you can claim somebody on the Mayflower because I will explain you many things). They don’t teach this how they should, so you must educate yourself.
Few things piss me off as a Professional Artist more than people pulling the “oh it’s so great to just follow your PASSION without worrying about MONEY” line, because like, fuck you, ok, fuck you for perpetuating an attitude that leads to people believing artists can and should work for “exposure” while artists die of exposure every night in the street, fuck you for perpetuating the dehumanizing idea that working-class people aren’t “really living”, just fuck you for being a pretentious fucking asshole whose art probably sucks anyway because you have no fucking self-awareness with which to study and improve, apparently
Money may not buy happiness, but it does buy security. Not having to worry about how I’m paying my rent, where my next meal is coming from, not having healthcare… That would go a long way toward making me happy.
skypeexorcism asked: With the Jared Leto's "Dallas Buyer's Club" controversy I was wondering whether or not you preferred a cis woman to play a trans woman or a cis man to play or women? How about a cis guy playing a trans guy or a cis woman playing a trans guy?
It’s vastly inappropriate for ANY cis person to take ANY trans roles for the following reasons:
- It limits the ways trans people are depicted to a handful of cis-imagined stereotypes.
- It lessens the already shallow pool of jobs available for trans actresses and actors.
- Much in the same way able-bodied people and straight people have taken roles as disabled and gay folks in order to win easy awards, it exploits the hardships of trans people without giving us anything in return.
- It takes away an opportunity for younger trans kids to see someone like them successfully working as an actress or an actor. A rare chance to give them a little ray of much-needed hope for their futures. (This is soooo important)
I’m not sure why this is even the least bit controversial.
On Becoming a Woman - Qalonymos ben Qalonymos -
this was written in 1322
i can’t imagine how hard it must have been struggling with gender shit back when physical transition was a total impossibility, even theoretically
i’m trying hard not to cry
we have a history. we have existed in every culture of the world at every moment of human history. cis institutions have tried to suppress this history or claim it as their own but it is not theirs. it is ours, and always will be. we must uncover and reclaim more of our history, and we must make more ourselves