““How can I support you?” is a question that works in almost every situation imaginable. It preempts judgement and assumptions while oozing humility. Often the person won’t have an immediate answer—likely because they aren’t used to being asked a question that’s about what they actually need as a unique human being. If they look stunned, I suggest something like: “It’s OK if you don’t have an answer or don’t need anything right now; the offer’s open for whenever. Just let me know.” And then use an emoji of some sort or make a face that conveys warmth so they know you mean it. (This could be a unicorn, the two señoritas dancing, or the smiling poo. Up to you.) *Here’s the fine print: you have to believe their answer, whatever it is. If they tell you they don’t need anything, you don’t get to push or pressure or demand they give you something to do so you feel less helpless. Remember, this isn’t about you.”
— Dear Bystander, The Unsolicited Advice Has Got To Stop - The Establishment (via oaluz)
For years mental health professionals taught people that they could be psychologically healthy without social support, that ‘unless you love yourself, no one else will love you’ …The truth is, you cannot love yourself unless you have been loved and are loved. The capacity to love cannot be built in isolation.
Unite behind Trump and the Pentagon? No! Let’s all unite to say, “No war, no way — Hands off Korea!”
DPRK has no right to defend itself?
What it all boils down to is this: There are forceful elements in the Trump administration and the Pentagon who refuse to accept the existence of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and are willing to engage in a nuclear war against it.
They admit that the DPRK has acquired nuclear weapons in order to defend itself against attack. Yet they turn that into a reason to carry out such an attack.
What has the DPRK done to warrant an attack by the U.S.? Has it attacked anyone? No. Has it sent troops outside its borders? No. Does it have nuclear-capable ships, planes and submarines circling the globe? No.
The imperialist U.S. government, so totally an arm of the billionaire ruling class, is the aggressor, not the DPRK, which for decades has endured U.S. threats of invasion through annual war “games” simulating an attack.
A Feb. 1 editorial in the New York Times, “Playing with Fire and Fury on North Korea,” ended with this admission: “The United States has been at war continuously since the attacks of Sept. 11 and now has just over 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories. Enough.”
This was written only two days after the same paper, in a Jan. 30 editorial on the State of the Union speech, said that Trump “deserved to take a bow” for “tightening sanctions on North Korea.” Now, however, the war danger has finally sunk in. The Times editors may argue that sanctions are an alternative to war. But, in fact, they are a prelude to war, in the thinking of Trump and much of the military.
Feminine subordination, in this logic, does not constitute submission to a violent and overbearing bully. The feminine woman, rather, on this construction, adores her protector and happily defers to his judgment in return for the promise of security that he offers. She looks up to him with gratitude for his manliness and admiration for his willingness to face the dangers of the world for her sake. That he finds her worthy of such risks gives substance to her self. It is only fitting that she should minister to his needs and obey his dictates.
Iris Marion Young, “The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State,” Signs Vol. 29, No. 1 (Autumn 2003), pp. 1-25 [PDF] (via physicalfeministresources)
The righteous man followed God’s luminous angels
And hurried after them over the hill.
But his wife heard an anxious voice that whispered:
“It isn’t too late, not yet; you can still
Look back at the towers of the town you came from,
At the street where you sang and the room where you spun,
At the empty windows of the house you cared for
And the bed where all your children were born.”
And of course she looked back. She felt a quick pang
And then everything ended. Her eyes closed
And her body dissolved into bitter crystals.
Her small feet stopped and grew into the ground.
No one seems to have mourned this woman;
She was only a minor event in the book.
But my heart holds fast to her memory:
A woman who gave up her life for a look.
In 1977, the Combahee River Collective, a black feminist organization, gathered in New Jersey for their second retreat, where they worked together to formulate a collaborative letter.
The Heresies Collective, whose membership consisted predominately of white women, had just published its third feminist art journal, titled “Lesbian Art and Artists,” but had neglected to feature a single woman of color. The Combahee River Collective, which was formed to raise consciousness about race and gender issues, had assembled to craft a response.
“We find it appalling,” they wrote, “that a hundred years from now it will be possible for women to conclude that in 1977 there were no practicing Black and other Third World lesbian artists.”
The critical debate that it provoked was an expression of the complex and often tumultuous relationship between mainstream feminism and the black women who were so often excluded from it—a tension that continues today. The activities undertaken by black women to push back against their erasure, in the late ’60s through the early ’80s, effectively amounted to a desire for a revolution.
It is from this fervor that a current exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum gets its title: “We Wanted A Revolution: Black Radical Women, 1965-85.”
The show, which is one part of the museum’s year-long initiative to reimagine feminist art, “A Year of Yes,” highlights the work of black women artists during the height of second-wave feminism and serves as a record of their stories—to be remembered for the next hundred years and beyond.
origamiaround
areudirty
dailybridgerton
ellievsbear
izzy806
jacobvanloon
germansingergirl
kianamaiart
