Posts tagged thought fodder

Link 260
Notes
Posted 1 week ago

galacticwiseguy: vastderp: kidcrimefighter: i keep seeing fight club talked about as a...

vastderp:

kidcrimefighter:

i keep seeing fight club talked about as a gross white guy wish fulfillment movie but like

my memory of it was that it was basically about how if a society promises straight white men that they are important and entitled to whatever they want as long as they follow these masculine values while also telling them to live normal consumer lives and do what you’re told and be a passive consumer

then when they basically grow up feeling impotent and filled with rage and entitlement (and misogyny) that they will try to find some outlet for and that that’s really dangerous and horrifying, both for others and themselves

like obviously the violence is attractive and cathartic because yes people like seeing people solve their problems by hitting things and rebelling against society but as you get toward the end of the movie things are quite clearly super fucked up, the main guy disfigures a dude’s face and later bob dies, the project mayhem guys try to cut the narrator’s balls off, and the main guy has a split personality and buildings get blown up. it is a lot more bleak and disturbing than a regular action movie where manly violence saves the day.

i haven’t seen this movie in years but idk i reread the wikipedia article and i think i remember it pretty well. i thought it was an interesting story for how tyler makes some interesting critiques of society while himself being a massive critique of how people respond to those problems in society, with tyler basically pointing out how society makes men feel emasculated and instead of responding by saying there’s something wrong with the culture of masculinity, he responds by saying that there’s something feminine infecting masculinity that has to be destroyed. which reminds me of that “but i’m a nice guy” animated short that was going around, that a lot of these misogynists are afraid of what they perceive as a female influence turning the world into something they don’t like, that doesn’t revolve around them. and as attractive as he is in the beginning, tyler is unambiguously the antagonist by the end. i think what makes the movie effective is how it can critique these ideas while making them superficially so attractive, because how insidious and attractive these masculine ideals are is what makes them so powerful, and that it can make that clear while also showing how ugly and terrible they are is kind of great i think.

is this reputation just because lots of dudes miss the point of it and think that tyler should be emulated? because i think that says more about the viewer than the movie, this stuff isn’t that ambiguous considering the movie ends with the protagonist killing tyler and like, holding a woman’s hand. i don’t know if i’d call it feminist exactly but i do think the basic idea of it is critical of the culture that perpetuates misogyny.

(also i was just reading an article to check about some of this and apparently the author of the original novel said that fight club was about “a man reaching the point where he can commit to a woman.” which is interesting. i guess basically the idea is that he has to learn that the solution to his numbness and sense of impotence is to find strength through love, not just rage and violence? which is completely at odds with tyler’s concept of masculinity, where women are just for sexual conquest).

THIS. 

Does anyone remember “Falling Down?” Wow did I ever think Michael Douglas was the shit in that film when I was a teenager. He didn’t sit in his traffic jam and suffer, he didn’t become a drone, he got a gun and WRECKED SHIT!!!! Except watching it again as an adult, I realized what a douchebag the guy actually was and sympathized with the cops chasing him down.

Same principle with the narrator’s evolving perceptions of Tyler Durden in Fight Club: When Tyler was just an escapist fantasy rebellion he was SUPER COOL, but when given an ounce of actual power he turned out to be just another destructive psycho prick. 

This is what I took away from Fight Club: it’s bait and switch wish fulfillment and a damn fine movie. Even if I had to leave the theater EVERY SINGLE TIME he pulled that tooth out (saw it ~8 times with Howell and Rain, haha).

TL;DR: Tyler Durden was not the sensei, he was the lesson.

via galacticwiseguy
Video 938
Notes
Posted 3 weeks ago

eschergirls:

Stefan Eriksson submitted:
Very interesting and tragic - Jimquisition brings up the creepyness of game publishers

If you had missed it I think this is interesting: Jimquisition brings up the creepyness of the attitude towards female protagonists by the gaming industry higher-ups.

This was very interesting.  Especially the part about publishers specifically saying they didn’t want to put the heroine on the cover of the game, and that a developer was told that their heroine couldn’t have a straight relationship because it would turn off the straight male audience.

via eschergirls
Quote 21347
Notes
Posted 1 month ago

But the 8-hour workday is too profitable for big business, not because of the amount of work people get done in eight hours (the average office worker gets less than three hours of actual work done in 8 hours) but because it makes for such a purchase-happy public. Keeping free time scarce means people pay a lot more for convenience, gratification, and any other relief they can buy. It keeps them watching television, and its commercials. It keeps them unambitious outside of work.

We’ve been led into a culture that has been engineered to leave us tired, hungry for indulgence, willing to pay a lot for convenience and entertainment, and most importantly, vaguely dissatisfied with our lives so that we continue wanting things we don’t have. We buy so much because it always seems like something is still missing.

Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (via beccap)

YESSS i knew i wasnt the only person out there who was making an issue out of this

My dad just explained this to me a month ago. True as fuck. 

(via baronessvonbullshit)

… Oh.

(via katsallday)

via thaddeusgrey
Text 180
Notes
Posted 1 month ago

portal-headcanons:

At the beginning of “The Fall,” GLaDOS tells Chell that her slow-clap processor “made it into this thing.” This implies, of course, that other functions of the mainframe also didn’t make it into the potato.

            The biggest one? Caroline.

            My headcanon is that Caroline, once separated from GLaDOS, became the driving force behind the itch—one of her four canon lines is about testing, after all. (“Sir? The testing?”) She’s the one with the obsession for it, and she’s the one who drove Wheatley to madness.

            And once separated from the mainframe, GLaDOS was finally able to think for herself—without Caroline getting in the way. It was only then, down in Old Aperture, that she realized who she was, and how much influence this former Aperture employee had on GLaDOS’s own personality.

            When the two reconnect later on, GLaDOS easily locates Caroline in the ending scene thanks to the “surge of emotion” that shot through her. The game never says what exactly this emotion was. It could be anything—concern, fright, happiness, or utter hatred toward Chell.  

            Let’s just say, for a moment, that that emotion was an intense dislike—a strong urge to let Chell fly out into space and die already. An impulse to let Chell go. And after all  the two had been through in Old Aperture, this would have been jarring to GLaDOS.

            This out-of-place emotion felt so much like herself—and that’s what bothered her. It was her old self—the person who would have wanted Chell to drown in acid or get shot by turrets. And it threw her off. It bothered her—at that moment, GLaDOS realized that the emotion came from Caroline’s personality, not her own—unlike the computer, she hadn’t changed a bit.

            But GLaDOS still intended to keep her promise to Chell—but Caroline, on the other hand, wanted her dead. Not just gone. And so in order let the test subject be free—to make the ending we all know and love possible—GLaDOS was left with no choice.

            She deleted Caroline to save Chell.

-silverstreams

via unbadger
Video 2718
Notes
Posted 1 month ago

cookiediesel:

thisiswhitehistory:

Day 11 of White History Month: How European Immigrants Became White: Part 1 - They Were Never People of Color

In the Siskiyou County, California, lumber industry in 1909, complaints from immigrants reached an Italian consular official who contacted the governor because Italian Americans were being treated as nonwhite. The governor replied frankly that the term “white” was one way people of that locality had of distinguishing “Americans” from Italians.- David Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness

Late European immigrants - including Irish, Jewish, Eastern European, and Italian immigrants - were often referred to as not being part of the “white race”. This can be attributed to the fact that race was a very muddled concept around the turn of the century. Anthropologists, sociologists, politicians, courts, and the general population could not agree on what race truly meant. The lack of opportunities that late European immigrants faced is no way comparable to what people of color in the United States faced.

There were numerous ways to classify new immigrants: by nationality (the “Italian race”), as a kind of racial mix with Black or Asian ancestry (as Southern Italians and Hungarians were sometimes classified, respectively), or as white. In reality, race was not a concept of white and non-white, but the general population instead picked up on social hierarchy that could be observed from public opinion surveys; only in the early 1920s held that early white Americans were at the top, followed by late European immigrants, then Asian Americans, and finally, Black Americans.

The racialization of white European immigrants was often dependent upon customs and culture, rather than purely appearance, as proven by early 20th century studies. A study of over 2,000 Jewish men in New York City (Fishberg 1911 p 79) revealed that only 14 percent had the nose that is stereotypically referred to as a “Jewish nose”. A study done before World War II showed that Italians and Jews in ethnic enclaves in New York City had very particular gestures and mannerisms, but this was only applicable to those who were not working class and unassimilated (Efron and Foley 1947). The same could not be said about Asian, Black, or Latino Americans who were distinguishable on sight (with the exception of the few who passed for white). Additionally, white immigrants could marry into “old European stock” and lose class markers through education and distinguishable surnames through marriage or name change. 

The emphasis on racialization for white Americans was on was on their class and cultural markers - their desire to assimilate, the social problems associated with their arrival, and their English language and technical skills. As Stanley Lieberson notes, for Black Americans the main barrier was that they were castigated if they dared to leave their “place” or “station”, particularly with the “racial etiquette” present in the South. European immigrants, on the other hand, were actually encouraged to achieve. They were encouraged to assimilate and to become American (and white). Black Americans tried as hard as European immigrants but were considered to be biologically inferior and thus not suitable for many jobs or neighborhoods - and even rights. Chinese immigrants faced a different experience than European immigrants. They were unable to assimilate and were oppressed by other immigrants.

What European immigrants experienced was for the most part prejudice and effects of nativism. They were largely not denied access to institutions based on their race, and even when they were, they were considered better than people of color. Courts decided that European immigrants were white before World War I (as it was necessary for citizenship). Michael Omi and Howard Winant believe that Europeans’ race was actually settled by the 1890s. Robert Blauner believed that these immigrants were “viewed racially” but were not victims of racism. While the earlier experiences of white European immigrants were not ideal nor equal to those of earlier immigrants, they were also not the same as those of Asian, Black, Latino, or Native Americans - though it is important to note that racialization of many Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants was not the same as that of gentiles).

All important information to know. Although it should be pointed out that the “No Dogs and Chinese” sign is actually from The Chinese Connection, a Bruce Lee movie.

via cookiediesel
Link 217
Notes
Posted 2 months ago

10 Things I Wish I'd Known When I Started My Transition

polycule:

You have to read this.

via loversintransition
Video 134
Notes
Posted 2 months ago

nevertoomanyspiders:

hamigakimomo:

Thank you DigiBrony, for saying what I am always trying to say. Girliness is not a hindrance.

good stuff! “liking MLP despite its girliness”, oof! you know who this show is made for?

via nevertoomanyspiders
Photo 777
Notes
Posted 2 months ago
diarrheaworldstarhiphop: She makes good points and is right in her analysis so I won’t argue about the validity of the “damsel in distress” as a common theme endemic in media that reduces some role models to uh… trophies, but my MAAAJOR gripe with it was vindicated: Nothing has changed since her original series. It’s still that same lazy goddamn Youtube video blog format that is lazy in its research and analysis. AAHH They COULD’VE AT LEAST done interviews with academics and game developers, investigative research with the money or you know, not make most of the footage video of the narrator herself. What’s the fucking point of over half of the footage being focused on the narrator’s portrait speaking? Could’ve been mostly a montage that was information and cross referencing with a variety of sources but whatever. IDK I’m disappointed. Valid points are made but this is not worth $158,992. For this video? $1000 maybe. $900 of it going to the visual effects in the video and $100 for her makeup or something. Repeat that $1000 for every video in the series and pocket the rest. Almost the entirety of the video is focused on Princess Peach or Princess Zelda. It’s not a very IN DEPTH piece of research on Video Game culture or even the changing demographics that could have explained the persistent use of the “trope” in game, it’s more or less a scratch at the surface of the two titles with UNIVERSAL APPEAL due to their very lazy plot device that was initially produced at a time when the primary consumer of videogames were sexually frustrated nerds who sought escapism from their thirst. And there’s a point in that. The majority of the games she discussed are OLDER titles from generations with lower technological capacity that necessitated simple relate-able plots (fairy tales anyone?) and two console flagship titles that rely on rehashing itself over and over for the sake of Nintendo’s stubborn traditions (compare this to how another notorious video game icon, Lora Croft, has changed to appeal to a contemporary and broader video game audience). However, the next episode will be “modern” examples apparently, so I’ll have to wait and see I suppose. But even so, in Nintendo’s list of flagship titles of heroines there’s Zelda and Peach but there is also [spoiler]Metroid’s Samus Aran[/spoiler] which was not mentioned because that primary nintendo Heroine stands in contrast to Anita’s argument. Then, in listing all the games where Princess Peach was the damsel in distress, she insisted that Peach was only playable and not a damsel in distress in Super Mario World 2 and for superficial reasons, which is incorrect as she failed to mention the game Super Princess Peach where Peach rescues a captured Mario. Or even Mario is Missing where Luigi repeatedly needs Peach’s help in order 2 find his bro throughout the game. But that is hardly Mario world canon so whatever. And the whole point of the video is to talk about EXAMPLES OF DAMSELS IN DISTRESS so it’s pretty much only cherry picking examples from the get go to prove her point no matter how flawed it is and ignoring points that compromise her argument. AKA: Bullshit Additionally, she is attempting to unpack a JAPANESE cultural production with a WESTERN lens with assumptions that it represents western cultural references to western gender roles and that is faulty analysis at best, racism at its worst. In analyzing Princess Peach, the critique assumes that it is strictly sexual, with Peach being a sex token to be owned, despite everything in Mario canon suggesting that it’s strictly platonic. Peach doesn’t have a Prince or King. Mario is never considered in the series as doing the rescuing as an act of selfish, rapey motivation but as service to his kingdom’s matriarch. Then considering the religious metaphorical context of good versus evil where relatively satanic looking Bowser (and his little imp demon koopas… kappas… Japan, etc) repeatedly attempts to capture or subdue Peach, you can begin to see how Peach is the matriarch and idol of all the toadstools and by being so represents a position of power and respect. Peach is order and Mario must bring order back to their world. Bowser is capturing Peach to throw the mushroom kingdom into disarray and seize power for himself, so by that manner alone, Peach is an icon of power. Mario isn’t Bowser’s arch-nemesis, it’s Peach. By looking at Peach so narrowly, you diminish the character herself. By criticizing the “damsel in distress” figure of Peach as if it is shameful, it suggests also that the only way to be a “good” female character in games is the kickbutt power fantasies like Joanna Dark, Samus Aran and Lora Croft. But even THAT is poor representation according to Anita, because you are basically making a man out of a female character, so what do you do here? Well… Also found in the Mario series is Princess Rosalina. In the Super Mario Galaxy Series, you could argue the Princess (Rosalina) sits in for being representative of gaia or even God as she is both a tremendous godlike power figure but also a impressively maternal one at that. In a way, Rosalina, the “Mother of the Cosmos”, represents a uniquely female position of power and respect. So if you are playing Mario and are turned off by Peach’s role, thankfully there’s another pivotal female character not too far off with HIGHER STATUS THAN ANYONE ELSE in the series that offers something a bit more respectable if gender roles is something you beef with. Rosalina is at the top of the hierarchy in Mario’s world. Every female representation in video games is inherently problematic because that is the nature of characters, there will be flaws and it’s the flaws that make these characters exciting. Princess Peach will always be Princess Peach because… that’s Princess Peach. She may have a tendency to be captured by Bowser and be dainty about it, but she is in no way powerless and without agency. If that NPC bothers you, you can then look up to Rosalina.. or really any other video game character. Gamers aren’t morons, they most certainly don’t take the roles in games seriously because they are all readily seen as fantasy. IDK, characters as metaphors and personifications of ideas. I urge you all to watch this video. It explains it way better than I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iNs5iG2h34 With that said, the BEST part of the first FF video was the initial bit on Starfox and Dinosaur Planet that slapped me with an OH FUCK, THATS BULLSHIT WOW WHY DID THEY DO THAT realization because that was the only part of the video that seemed like it required critical thought beyond foundation year community college gender studies level of research. It engaged me and made me emphasize with the argument. Even so, I have no idea why the premise is discussing video games in general if the episode’s major gripe is with examples specific to Nintendo’s franchises. IDK, you get what you pay for (the original proposal was for $6000 to buy games to make another youtube series) and that was $160,000 that was donated to some wiener casual college grad out of a sense of SHOWING UP VITRIOLIC 15 YEAR OLD BOYS ON THE INTERNET FOR SAYING MEAN THINGS IN YOUTUBE COMMENTS!!! 2/10 would grasp for something thought provoking again. It should be renamed “Lazily Critiquing three core Nintendo Franchises for shit we all already know about: The Movie” Zoom

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:

She makes good points and is right in her analysis so I won’t argue about the validity of the “damsel in distress” as a common theme endemic in media that reduces some role models to uh… trophies, but my MAAAJOR gripe with it was vindicated:

image

Nothing has changed since her original series. It’s still that same lazy goddamn Youtube video blog format that is lazy in its research and analysis. AAHH They COULD’VE AT LEAST done interviews with academics and game developers, investigative research with the money or you know, not make most of the footage video of the narrator herself. What’s the fucking point of over half of the footage being focused on the narrator’s portrait speaking? Could’ve been mostly a montage that was information and cross referencing with a variety of sources but whatever.

IDK I’m disappointed. Valid points are made but this is not worth $158,992. For this video? $1000 maybe. $900 of it going to the visual effects in the video and $100 for her makeup or something. Repeat that $1000 for every video in the series and pocket the rest.

Almost the entirety of the video is focused on Princess Peach or Princess Zelda. It’s not a very IN DEPTH piece of research on Video Game culture or even the changing demographics that could have explained the persistent use of the “trope” in game, it’s more or less a scratch at the surface of the two titles with UNIVERSAL APPEAL due to their very lazy plot device that was initially produced at a time when the primary consumer of videogames were sexually frustrated nerds who sought escapism from their thirst. And there’s a point in that. The majority of the games she discussed are OLDER titles from generations with lower technological capacity that necessitated simple relate-able plots (fairy tales anyone?) and two console flagship titles that rely on rehashing itself over and over for the sake of Nintendo’s stubborn traditions (compare this to how another notorious video game icon, Lora Croft, has changed to appeal to a contemporary and broader video game audience). However, the next episode will be “modern” examples apparently, so I’ll have to wait and see I suppose.

But even so, in Nintendo’s list of flagship titles of heroines there’s Zelda and Peach but there is also [spoiler]Metroid’s Samus Aran[/spoiler] which was not mentioned because that primary nintendo Heroine stands in contrast to Anita’s argument. Then, in listing all the games where Princess Peach was the damsel in distress, she insisted that Peach was only playable and not a damsel in distress in Super Mario World 2 and for superficial reasons, which is incorrect as she failed to mention the game Super Princess Peach where Peach rescues a captured Mario. Or even Mario is Missing where Luigi repeatedly needs Peach’s help in order 2 find his bro throughout the game. But that is hardly Mario world canon so whatever. And the whole point of the video is to talk about EXAMPLES OF DAMSELS IN DISTRESS so it’s pretty much only cherry picking examples from the get go to prove her point no matter how flawed it is and ignoring points that compromise her argument. AKA: Bullshit

image

Additionally, she is attempting to unpack a JAPANESE cultural production with a WESTERN lens with assumptions that it represents western cultural references to western gender roles and that is faulty analysis at best, racism at its worst. In analyzing Princess Peach, the critique assumes that it is strictly sexual, with Peach being a sex token to be owned, despite everything in Mario canon suggesting that it’s strictly platonic. Peach doesn’t have a Prince or King. Mario is never considered in the series as doing the rescuing as an act of selfish, rapey motivation but as service to his kingdom’s matriarch. Then considering the religious metaphorical context of good versus evil where relatively satanic looking Bowser (and his little imp demon koopas… kappas… Japan, etc) repeatedly attempts to capture or subdue Peach, you can begin to see how Peach is the matriarch and idol of all the toadstools and by being so represents a position of power and respect. Peach is order and Mario must bring order back to their world. Bowser is capturing Peach to throw the mushroom kingdom into disarray and seize power for himself, so by that manner alone, Peach is an icon of power. Mario isn’t Bowser’s arch-nemesis, it’s Peach.

By looking at Peach so narrowly, you diminish the character herself. By criticizing the “damsel in distress” figure of Peach as if it is shameful, it suggests also that the only way to be a “good” female character in games is the kickbutt power fantasies like Joanna Dark, Samus Aran and Lora Croft. But even THAT is poor representation according to Anita, because you are basically making a man out of a female character, so what do you do here? Well… Also found in the Mario series is Princess Rosalina. In the Super Mario Galaxy Series, you could argue the Princess (Rosalina) sits in for being representative of gaia or even God as she is both a tremendous godlike power figure but also a impressively maternal one at that. In a way, Rosalina, the “Mother of the Cosmos”, represents a uniquely female position of power and respect. So if you are playing Mario and are turned off by Peach’s role, thankfully there’s another pivotal female character not too far off with HIGHER STATUS THAN ANYONE ELSE in the series that offers something a bit more respectable if gender roles is something you beef with. Rosalina is at the top of the hierarchy in Mario’s world.

image

Every female representation in video games is inherently problematic because that is the nature of characters, there will be flaws and it’s the flaws that make these characters exciting. Princess Peach will always be Princess Peach because… that’s Princess Peach. She may have a tendency to be captured by Bowser and be dainty about it, but she is in no way powerless and without agency. If that NPC bothers you, you can then look up to Rosalina.. or really any other video game character. Gamers aren’t morons, they most certainly don’t take the roles in games seriously because they are all readily seen as fantasy. IDK, characters as metaphors and personifications of ideas.

I urge you all to watch this video. It explains it way better than I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iNs5iG2h34

With that said, the BEST part of the first FF video was the initial bit on Starfox and Dinosaur Planet that slapped me with an OH FUCK, THATS BULLSHIT WOW WHY DID THEY DO THAT realization because that was the only part of the video that seemed like it required critical thought beyond foundation year community college gender studies level of research. It engaged me and made me emphasize with the argument. Even so, I have no idea why the premise is discussing video games in general if the episode’s major gripe is with examples specific to Nintendo’s franchises.

IDK, you get what you pay for (the original proposal was for $6000 to buy games to make another youtube series) and that was $160,000 that was donated to some wiener casual college grad out of a sense of SHOWING UP VITRIOLIC 15 YEAR OLD BOYS ON THE INTERNET FOR SAYING MEAN THINGS IN YOUTUBE COMMENTS!!!

2/10 would grasp for something thought provoking again.

It should be renamed “Lazily Critiquing three core Nintendo Franchises for shit we all already know about: The Movie”

image

via diarrefpuckhookyplay-em-offs
Photo 147756
Notes
Posted 5 months ago
vastderp: elanorpam: breewriteswords: wellthatsclever: Full Article wowww. and I always thought it was so romantic. I always reblog this because for every one person who understands the true story behind this picture there’s about 50 who don’t. D: Scummy as grabbing and kissing a woman on the street undeniably is, I would like to caution people against ignoring Greta Friedman’s perspective and painting her as a victim. I’ve seen a few people representing her story in fairly sensationalist ways, and it feels (to me) like her statements have been farmed for problematic quotes to support the writer’s conclusions, and her actual feelings on the matter have been ignored. I saw, on the lighted bill board that goes around the building. .. ‘V-J Day, V-J Day!’ That really confirmed what the people had said in the office. Suddenly, I was grabbed by a sailor. It wasn’t that much of a kiss. It was more of a jubilant act that he didn’t have to go back. I found out later he was so happy that he didn’t have to go back to the Pacific where they had already been through the war. The reason he grabbed somebody dressed like a nurse, that he felt so very grateful to the nurses who took care of the wounded.  It’s Greta Friedman’s right to determine whether the situation on the street was positive or negative. They were happy, they didn’t have to go back to war. They’d had enough!  She’s fairly clear, over the course of this interview, about how she interpreted the mood that led to the infamous kiss as being a positive and elated one: all throughout the day and the evening, people were there. It was like New Year’s Eve only better! She does not consider herself to have been victimized by a sexual assault. I’m not sure about the kiss… it was just somebody celebrating. It wasn’t a romantic event. It was just an event of ‘thank god the war is over’ … it was right in front of the sign. It is Friedman’s right to be horrified, unhappy, enthusiastic or proud about being kissed. Her experience is not our political scandal. We, as bystanders several generations in the future, do not get to decide she should have felt.  Rape culture is a real thing, and trying to make what happened suddenly an okay thing simply because she personally shrugged it off would indeed be part of that—but when we make a spokesperson out of Friedman in this way, we are using her. She gets to decide how to tell her story. Full stop. Patricia Redmond:How does it feel to be so famous? Greta Friedman:It’s kind of fun, because it’s very accidental. Fame for just being there…being dressed right. Actually, the fame belongs to the photographer. He provided an art… I can’t call it a skill. He was an artist. I just happened to be there…. and so did George. Swapping christmas cards and being on good terms with with the guy who kissed her and his wife: this is her choice, and we need to respect that she is smart enough to decide whether she wants to associate with the guy afterwards or not. We send Christmas cards and [George] has a very lovely wife and I have talked to her. Were not friends to see each other, but through this happening we have something in common. It’s not OK to touch people or kiss people without permission. A culture that says that it’s all in good fun when men push women around is objectively sick, but can we please not rewrite a grown woman and an American icon into a symbol of victimhood without her consent? She has a voice here. Don’t take that away because you want to make a point on her behalf. Disagree with her for taking what happened so lightly if you want, but  please do so knowing you’re arguing with a person who was actually there, and whose perspective is valid, however outdated by your social standards.  Is Friedman herself guilty of the “wide misinterpretation” of the photo because she is not unhappy about what happened? When is it right to tell another person that their experience is invalid? All my Greta Friedman quotes come from this interview, which I really recommend. It contains information about who she is, as well as the role she played during the war before the kiss. Zoom

vastderp:

elanorpam:

breewriteswords:

wellthatsclever:

wowww. and I always thought it was so romantic.

I always reblog this because for every one person who understands the true story behind this picture there’s about 50 who don’t.

D:

Scummy as grabbing and kissing a woman on the street undeniably is, I would like to caution people against ignoring Greta Friedman’s perspective and painting her as a victim.

I’ve seen a few people representing her story in fairly sensationalist ways, and it feels (to me) like her statements have been farmed for problematic quotes to support the writer’s conclusions, and her actual feelings on the matter have been ignored.

I saw, on the lighted bill board that goes around the building. .. ‘V-J Day, V-J Day!’ That really confirmed what the people had said in the office. Suddenly, I was grabbed by a sailor. It wasn’t that much of a kiss. It was more of a jubilant act that he didn’t have to go back. I found out later he was so happy that he didn’t have to go back to the Pacific where they had already been through the war. The reason he grabbed somebody dressed like a nurse, that he felt so very grateful to the nurses who took care of the wounded. 

It’s Greta Friedman’s right to determine whether the situation on the street was positive or negative.

They were happy, they didn’t have to go back to war. They’d had enough! 

She’s fairly clear, over the course of this interview, about how she interpreted the mood that led to the infamous kiss as being a positive and elated one:

all throughout the day and the evening, people were there. It was like New Year’s Eve only better!

She does not consider herself to have been victimized by a sexual assault.

I’m not sure about the kiss… it was just somebody celebrating. It wasn’t a romantic event. It was just an event of ‘thank god the war is over’ … it was right in front of the sign.

It is Friedman’s right to be horrified, unhappy, enthusiastic or proud about being kissed. Her experience is not our political scandal. We, as bystanders several generations in the future, do not get to decide she should have felt. 

Rape culture is a real thing, and trying to make what happened suddenly an okay thing simply because she personally shrugged it off would indeed be part of that—but when we make a spokesperson out of Friedman in this way, we are using her. She gets to decide how to tell her story. Full stop.

Patricia Redmond:
How does it feel to be so famous?


Greta Friedman:
It’s kind of fun, because it’s very accidental. Fame for just being there…being dressed right. Actually, the fame belongs to the photographer. He provided an art… I can’t call it a skill. He was an artist. I just happened to be there…. and so did George.

Swapping christmas cards and being on good terms with with the guy who kissed her and his wife: this is her choice, and we need to respect that she is smart enough to decide whether she wants to associate with the guy afterwards or not.
We send Christmas cards and [George] has a very lovely wife and I have talked to her. Were not friends to see each other, but through this happening we have something in common.
It’s not OK to touch people or kiss people without permission. A culture that says that it’s all in good fun when men push women around is objectively sick, but can we please not rewrite a grown woman and an American icon into a symbol of victimhood without her consent? She has a voice here. Don’t take that away because you want to make a point on her behalf.
Disagree with her for taking what happened so lightly if you want, but  please do so knowing you’re arguing with a person who was actually there, and whose perspective is valid, however outdated by your social standards. 
Is Friedman herself guilty of the “wide misinterpretation” of the photo because she is not unhappy about what happened? When is it right to tell another person that their experience is invalid?
All my Greta Friedman quotes come from this interview, which I really recommend. It contains information about who she is, as well as the role she played during the war before the kiss.
image

(Source: m0dizzle)

via vastderp
Text 1540
Notes
Posted 1 year ago

How to tell if you, or a white person you know, is racist.

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

I’m sure every white person and their brother knows by now, if you say the n-word, you will be immediately be pegged as racist and be side-eyed for the rest of your natural life by even other racist white people.

But did you know that there are things you can say that AREN’T racial slurs that can make you racist?

I know. Shocker.

We’ll go over some of those phrases shortly, in hopes that you will realize all of the parts of racism, instead of just the parts you feel like.

But first, you must understand that racists aren’t all going out murdering PoC. They don’t all burn crosses. They don’t all scream slurs and get swastika tattoos. In fact, PoC actually like those people better, because they’re obvious and easy to avoid. I mean, if you see a guy with a swastika tattoo on his left cheek and “White Power” on his right cheek…chances are you have all the information you need to know about this guy. No no, the racists we have the most trouble with are the ones who are less obvious, the ones who actually think that they’re enlightened, and above racism.

You can catch subtle racism, either in yourself, or in others, by answering a few easy questions:

—Do you argue regularly with PoC on what the definition of racism is? Have you ever quoted the dictionary definitions in an attempt to stronghold a PoC’s definition?

—Have you ever told a PoC that “you understand why they are angry” and follow that up with “but they need to stop lashing out at the good white people”? Have you ever told a PoC complaining about racism that you are a “good, not-racist white person”?

—Have you ever told a PoC they talk about racism too much? Have you ever told them they get too angry? Have you ever called them hostile?

—Have you ever derailed an argument being made by a PoC by pointing out a small, ineffectual portion of it and acting as if that overrides the argument in full?

—Have you ever brought the focus of an argument on racism to yourself or your feelings? How about to the feelings of theoretical white people who aren’t in the conversation?

—Have you ever insisted on sticking by friends who are known to be racist, and then say that “you don’t have a choice”?

—Have you ever thought it a good idea to tell a PoC about the time people from their race were mean to you for being white? Have you EVER told a story in which PoC were “racist” against you?

—Do you believe that it is possible to be racist against white people?

—Do you believe that loss of privilege in another area eliminates white privilege? Do you believe that moving to another country eliminates white privilege? Do you believe that white privilege can be eliminated, period?

—Have you ever said the phrase “kill whitey” in an attempt to side with PoC on racism?

—Have you ever repeatedly contacted a PoC who has said they did not want to receive contact from white people due to horrid events that day?

—Have you ever made an ironically racist joke?

—Have you ever found yourself needing to defend yourself from accusations of racism?

—Have you ever accused a PoC of using the race card?

—Have you ever used the race card yourself in reference to whiteness?

—Do you believe that PoC-only places discriminate in a bad way against whites?

—Do you think that there are racial slurs that affect whites?

—Do you think that race doesn’t exist?

—Have you ever claimed to not see race, that all humans are part of humanity, that we all bleed red, or that you are colorblind and see all people equally until they treat you badly?

—Have you ever watched PoC get treated badly at an event you organized, but insist that they show up to help organize despite that?

—Do you think that there are experiences a white person can face that are equivalent to racism? Do you think that other marginalizations are comparable to racism?

—Do you quote violent statistics from other marginalizations that refer to the marginalization as a whole, without sending care to the fact that 75% of the people in that statistic are PoC?

—Do you willingly date known racist people? Do you defend racist people or racist actions?

—Have you ever gotten angry at a PoC for not “supporting the troops” or “liking the police”?

—Do you think the world is equal or mostly equal? Do you think that bad things and good things happen to various races in a fairly equal manner?

—Have you ever accused PoC as a whole of taking things from either you individually or white people as a whole?

—Are you against programs made to help PoC specifically?

—Have you ever claimed that PoC have “had enough time to catch up to white people and it’s their fault if they haven’t”?

—Have you ever used “bootstraps” against a PoC in any capacity, whether in relation to jobs, schooling, housing, childcare, or anything else?

—Have you ever unironically stated that we’re in a “post racial society”?

—Have you ever gotten angry for “generalizations” or “stereotypes” against white people?

—Do you think white people “just don’t get enough attention”? Some things you might recognize include thinking white people need a White Entertainment Television, movies all about white life, White History Month, or White Culture Day.

—Have you ever dressed up in blackface? Have you ever argued that dressing up in blackface isn’t racist? Have you ever argued that dressing up as any stereotype of PoC isn’t racist? Have you ever argued that PoC dressing up as stereotypes of white people is racist?

—Have you ever seriously used the phrase “reverse racism”? Have you ever seriously said that “reverse racism doesn’t exist, racism against white people is still racism”?

—Have you ever declined to date someone on the basis of their race/skin color, and claimed that “you cannot help your preferences”?

—Have you ever claimed that a racial issue is a “class issue”? Have you ever tried to separate class and race? Have you ever tried to treat race as a standalone, isolated issue?

—Do you believe that racism and oppression involves isolated incidents of being mean, rude, or inconsiderate?

—Have you ever used anecdotal data to “prove” to PoC that they are wrong about racism?

—Have you ever thought that your input was necessary in conversations of racism?

—Have you ever thought that your views of racism are objective, unlike PoC’s, and therefore worthwhile?

—Do you think that academia is supportive of PoC? Do you think that academia drafts logical processes in support of PoC? Do you uphold academia to the highest regard, higher than actual people?

If you answered YES to any of these questions, congratulations, you’ve done something racist! If you answered YES to more than one, you are a flat out racist! Now do something about it.

(Source: crackerhell)

via i-sauntered-vaguely-downwards