sideblog where I collect leftist analysis/etc, primarily focused around gender, disability, and care work. anarcho-pragmatist. may or may not agree 100% with anything here, just want to be able to reference later.
Since I actually talk on this blog sometimes now I figure I should make a pinned post!
Stuff you should know about me/this blog:
I'm an adult and I use any pronouns.
I post about very heavy topics (systemic oppression of many types, violence including sexual violence, etc) and don't tag things. I realize that's an access issue for many people, which sucks, but I'm not able to do so consistently so I figure it's better to let people know up front so they can choose not to follow me if that would be an issue.
If you try to start an argument with me, are obviously interacting with me in bad faith, are being intentionally cruel, etc, I will just block you & won't reply.
As I said in my header, me reblogging something is not me endorsing it. This is primarily a personal archive blog for things I want to reference later, which includes topics I need to research in more depth before formulating an opinion on and sometimes things I don't agree with at all.
Feel free to send me an ask or DM about anything on this blog! Whether you have opinions, questions, or just want to chat about it, I'd love to hear from you.
This post is tagged w/ my organizational tags for easy reference.
I think we (yanks) have a possible Victory Gardens 2.0 situation emerging, except the soil is poisoned in a looooot of places now and having arable land is a crazy luxury to people who can't afford to buy a home and who don't own property, and, well. you know. even if the homestead act hadn't ended in the 1970s (80s for Alaska) they'd have to buy or steal the lumber to build a shack and squat long enough for ownership rights to apply. anyway look into sweet potatoes
Screenshot bc annas archive urls have been unreliable lately so. This: https://annas-archive.gl/md5/d326a6a470b017eccb5c180b9e89f76b but if the link dont work, go to the Wikipedia page for annas archive to find the active urls and then search. Anyway
dont like a lot of what this guy has to say about the world & the actual practical $25ish system that ppl across the continent already use for offgrid life, diy events etc can fit on one page. But its a pretty good book for at least one person in ur friend group to have read because you can glean a lot about biological soil contamination and like just Generally not getting fuckin. Cholera n shit. Less helpful for heavy metals and whatnot.
Sweet potatoes are dope as FUCK because they propagate super easily which means you can use scary squat garden soil to grow plants to produce cuttings to grow in safe soil đ i have friends who do this.
Im not tryina front like a Food Expert but ive spent a lot of time around people whos entire deal is food system revolution & from those folks, perennial food sources > conventional modern gardening, nuts and fruit and whatnot, but i think it really depends on where somebody lives. Along the lines of what prev said... might be a good time for folks to get together with their friends and just like, walk as far from home as you think is reasonable/sustainable, make note of food sources available there vs how many other people are also in that area, and uh. Maybe think and talk about that some?
This article is by some of them Plant People and its very much written to be non-overwhelming
Oh my god yanks are so fucking annoying. Have you considered maybe fighting against your government and actually working to build a mass movement to genuinely make change rather than individualist bullshit like making human shit compost for your garden ??
Like holy fuck itâs good to garden yes but why is a personal garden always your guyâs fucking go to
The mass movement will magically eradicate e coli from the soil and water đ why would we learn anything about skills relevant to the reproduction of daily life when we can be temporarily embarrassed vangaurdists and chide people online for not being more like Rojava or the Zapatistas or--
Wait im getting some new reports. Wait what. They did what? Oh no.
(Theres a lot more abt food systems & revolution including global stories in the actual Almanacs which u can download for free on the site. If you fucking care. Which this person does not.)
Iâll be responding to a few comments+rbs in this one reblog.
Wow ! Almost as if I never said that.
You canât feed a revolutionary army from a goddamn backyard garden, even a big one. You need industrialized farms. Which would be seized by the workers. A concept that comes from the scientific process of marxism and using the strategies learned from figures who fought and won their revolutions like Lenin. HmmmmâŠ. Must be that scary marxism-Leninism from my bio
I am not a worshipper of rojava or the zapatistasâŠ. Not sure where that came from.
Also of course a mass movement wouldnât magically remove e-coli from our water systems. Magic isnât real Iâm not sure if youâve heard.
With a pre-revolution movement around more funding for agricultural/water treatment studies we absolutely could achieve this. In a post/during-revolution socialist system where there is no profit motive much more focus could be put towards fixing issues like soil erosion, nutrient depletion, recovery of fresh water sources and so on.
Never mentioned anything that even suggested that we should be sharing our names addresses and plans ? Let alone on TikTok âŠ. Not like tumblr would be any safer.
Also I admit ! No my main focus is not on how to garden ! God forbid. I leave that in the hands of those who have a green thumb ! I know very good gardeners and I also know people who literally study food systems as their thing and understand these things miles better than myself. And thatâs okay ! Not everyone has to know everything in order to change the system.
I do care about food obviously. I care that there are so many starving and that we cannot fix that through victory gardens 2.0. That is an individual fix to a systemic problem. This is why I commented on here in the first. Sorry to the anti-civvers on this post (not saying you all are but I have seen multiple in the notes of this post) but if we want to avoid a mass die-off of human life on this planet we need industrialized food systems
God forbid we have discussion and debate on a topic coyote mom. Youâre an anti-civver. Donât most give up on that a couple weeks after their first mushroom trip ?
....op was bemoaning that something that happened literally in our grandparents lifetimes is harder now, somebody said foraging is useful & I advocated basic awareness of local food sources & sanitation techniques. Like. Ya Rlly wandered in swinging to a rlly benign and boring <100 note post being shared around one circle of mostly mutuals. Sorry for having a conversation that doesn't cater to your priorities, random internet stranger. You might be like less mad if you actually looked into any of this stuff or just I guess read the post a little slower or like minded ur own business. Kinda self centered tbh. The book i linked is literally making an argument for composting as mass civil sanitation infrastructure in addition to having useful diy info. Thats not my bag but its literally right there.
But fine ill play: certainly everyone ive ever heard speak on disaster response experience, from international orgs to MADR to people who have just seen some shit, will tell u that a population having basic fucking skills is immensely helpful for that infrastructure that ur so excited about. Taking a few hours out of ur week to try to have any grasp on any of those "individualized solutions" does actually matter when infrastructure buckles, even if its just having an understanding of what to do if ur toilets stop flushing or knowing some weeds you can eat or like literally anything you can do in ur own little zone of personal influence to kind of protect your future self and ideally have a little extra to share. In dire situations, famines and storms and whatever else, what ur claiming as "individualism" is less overall burden. Its less resource need but its also less coms, less triage, less transportation, less mess. Personally I think 1) more people being personally safer in bad situations, thereby 2) having more capacity to support others and 3) contributing to the overall level of resource in an area by NOT needing help is a win-win-win scenario.
I'm genuinely confused by ur "ill leave it to the experts" stance when like. I was literally explicitly sharing what the experts in my life have said? + Maybe someone wants to skill up and doesnt know how and clicking some links to some books gets them started? If you want experts to exist to handle things for you then like 1) good luck with that but 2) maybe start with not barging in whenever people are discussing it amongst themselves and calling them annoying.
This isnt even anticiv vs industrial food systems its fucking experience & evidence-based Reality vs. get out there and VOTE REVOLT
re: the loneliness epidemic post, it's genuinely so so so hard right now as someone whose Job is organizing events for LGBT university students. our whole goal is to help them find peers to connect with, but it often feels like they're working against us.
not on purpose, of course, and I never want to sound like I'm blaming students for their own feelings of isolation. there are a lot of factors that make it hard to socialize, ranging from a very full class/work schedule to various neurodivergences to the majority white attendance at many campus activities to the fact that many of these students spent some formative years in quarantine.
but man, it's hard when students talk about feeling hated and unwanted by a club because no one there talks to them, only to drop that they never even try to initiate any conversation themselves. or when a student complains that they're not making any friends on campus, but when asked where they're going to meet people outside of class they seem confused and say they hardly leave their dorm for anything but class. we're currently administering an anonymous survey to assess student satisfaction with our programs, and one person wrote that they'd like to attend more of our events but don't because they don't know anyone there and don't know what the vibe will be. the solution to both of those problems feels very obvious, to me, and it's frustrating to see mild uncertainty be such a hurdle.
especially given that, again, these are queer young people, who a.) have a lot of reasons to despair right now and b.) have a lot of awful online spaces they could be spending time in instead of touching grass, it's a fucking bummer to see them so wary of hanging out in physical space with real people.
A skill i've been working to get better at when I go to conferences and conventions is to basically approach tables of interesting looking people and going "May I join you?" and listening to their conversation and joining in
And it is a skill! You are approaching strangers, you are making a bid for connection and interaction that may end in rejection, or just not clicking fully, or anything similar, and that can be scary!
But I think a problem that a lot of younger people have in how harshly regimented many schools and then colleges are, and ditto how little free time they're likely to have outside of their workplace and commute, made worse by isolated housing and lack of free or even affordable third spaces
Is that there's very little development of the skill of seeking out the people who look interesting or otherwise compatible with yourself, approaching them, and beginning the process of connecting with them
People are very used to only making new friends and connections when circumstances, and especially an authority, force them into proximity with one another
Esp in a surveillance state where there's anxieties about meeting new people in case they're bad or incompatible with your beliefs, sometimes people only want to connect with new people when they can scope them out on socials first, and that only adds to this anxiety of meeting people as a social skill!
tbh if i was chilling at a table talking with my friends and some rando walked up and said "may i join you?" i would be offended and creeped out
i do empathize with and agree with a lot of OP here but at the same time so much of that post and especially the reblog are placing all the onus on the lonely people. all the work of seeking out connection is being placed at the feet of the people with the least social power and wherewithal. why should that be how it works
if there's a cool group of people talking, i'm never going to walk up and bother them. they're the ones with a solid social footing and comfortable position, they're the ones who can afford to invite me in to what they're doing if they want to.
if i'm new at college and I go to a club meeting, it's not my job as the newcomer to start conversations! I've got no social capital, if I try to start conversations I'm being intrusive and rude! It's their club and I'm some rando who wandered in! If I'm the newcomer it's their job to be welcoming if they want new people. I should be humble and wait, and they should be inviting me in and making me part of what's going on.
all of this follows from the basic fact that our society is structured to reward pushiness and arrogance, and expects people to "assert themselves" and "put themselves out there" and look after their own interests. that's what we admire and that's what we expect, and even OP, firmly goodhearted and wanting to help these people, is seeing it as a failure on their parts that they're not pushy and rude enough to make friends. that's just a bad way to structure a society! the work of fixing loneliness should be done by people who aren't lonely; they're the ones with the power to do so.
I'm going to take this line by line, because there's a lot to unpack here.
"if i was chilling at a table talking with my friends and some rando walked up and said "may i join you?" i would be offended and creeped out"
So, look: given that the rest of your post situates you as a lonely person struggling to find connection - and given, crucially, your subsequent comment that "if there's a cool group of people talking, i'm never going to walk up and bother them" - I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that, rather than being a statement of personal intent, this comment expresses what you assume strangers think of you. Which... I don't know how old you are, but this smacks of high school logic. Yes, adults can also be assholes, but we're expressly talking about events like conferences, conventions and university club events, where the entire point is to meet people. Kill the cop in your head that says you can't approach the Cool Kids! You absolutely can!
so much of that post and especially the reblog are placing all the onus on the lonely people. all the work of seeking out connection is being placed at the feet of the people with the least social power and wherewithal. why should that be how it works
I'm going to come back to "people with the least social power and wherewithal" in a moment, because there's a lot of very wrong assumptions encoded in this language, but to put it simply: if you're lonely and want friends, the onus is on you to seek out connection for the same reason that, if you're hungry and want food, the onus is on you to find something to eat. In terms of both food and companionship, the job of a healthy community is to provide you with opportunities to meet your needs, and as far as our stated example goes - attending something like a university club - the existence of the event itself is the provision of opportunity. That being so, expecting strangers to do all the work of befriending you at an open event is like walking into a supermarket and expecting someone else to put groceries in your basket. You're still responsible for your own needs!
if there's a cool group of people talking, i'm never going to walk up and bother them. they're the ones with a solid social footing and comfortable position, they're the ones who can afford to invite me in to what they're doing if they want to.
Again, the logic you're deploying here smacks of high school. Why are you assigning strangers a context-specific social status simply because they're talking in a group? They could've met five minutes ago! But even if they are established friends, socialization is a mutual affair. For all they know, you're perfectly happy on your own and any social overture on their part would be unwelcome. Your loneliness has not magically become their responsibility just because they arrived before you!
if i'm new at college and I go to a club meeting, it's not my job as the newcomer to start conversations! I've got no social capital, if I try to start conversations I'm being intrusive and rude! It's their club and I'm some rando who wandered in! If I'm the newcomer it's their job to be welcoming if they want new people. I should be humble and wait, and they should be inviting me in and making me part of what's going on.
Framing this in terms of whose job it is to talk first entirely misses the point of socializing for fun, which is that none of you have to do anything. If you show up to an open event that's expressly intended to bring strangers together, then politely approaching people isn't being "intrusive and rude" - it's participating. Similarly, if you show up to your regular social event and only talk to your existing friends, that's also participating! You're not obliged to talk to strangers, just as strangers aren't obliged to talk to you. Friendship requires both parties to make an effort, and if you decline to make any beyond simply being a body in a room, then while it might hurt your feelings to be excluded, you cannot rightly get mad at strangers for failing to take the extra step you refused to take yourself.
Which doesn't mean we have no communal responsibility to one other. Ideally, we should always strive to be welcoming! But community, by definition, goes both ways, and if you're thinking foremost about what you need or want from strangers, and not what they might need or want from you, then you likely won't get very far.
all of this follows from the basic fact that our society is structured to reward pushiness and arrogance, and expects people to "assert themselves" and "put themselves out there" and look after their own interests. that's what we admire and that's what we expect, and even OP, firmly goodhearted and wanting to help these people, is seeing it as a failure on their parts that they're not pushy and rude enough to make friends.
Here's the thing: if it's fundamentally pushy/arrogant/rude to approach a stranger for potential friendship purposes, then that holds true regardless of whether they're part of a group or standing by themselves. Right? You're framing this as though there's some profound difference between you, a solo person, daring to talk to a group of strangers, and a group of strangers daring to talk to you, a solo person, but there's not. Regardless of who initiates things, in order for a conversation to take place, someone has to take that first step! Someone has to submit themselves to the mortifying ordeal!
You're assigning a negative moral value to the act of talking to strangers to explain why you shouldn't have to do it, but your strategy ultimately depends on strangers talking to you. You've attempted to justify this contradiction by saying "well, those Cool Kids have social capital and I don't," but this literally just something you've made up in your head, not because social capital doesn't exist, but because you're assigning it equally to these hypothetical strangers based purely on the fact that they're already talking to each other, and not because you've got any actual insight into the social dynamics at play. For all you know, these people just met and are equally new to the space you're in; alternatively, they might be its founders, possessed of complex, deeply internecine relationships that it'd take three hours, a box of wine and a string board to unpack - but just by looking, at the moment you first walk in, you don't know which is which.
the work of fixing loneliness should be done by people who aren't lonely; they're the ones with the power to do so.
Wrong: you also have this power! You're an autonomous human being! I'm not saying it's never difficult or scary or that nobody can ever face specific challenges that make socialization harder for them than others, but to insist as a general point that lonely people don't or shouldn't bear the lion's share of responsibility for making themselves un-lonely is the voice of learned helplessness talking. You can be made a friend by someone proactive, but you can also make friends, too. There's no shame in preferring the former, but there's no moral dimension to the preference, and it's not the same as being incapable of the latter. And at a certain point, if just waiting for someone to notice you isn't working and you're unhappy with the outcome, then the onus is indeed on you to make a change - because it's your life.
Gonna be slightly annoying and point out that just like there are people who cannot put food in the grocery basket for themselves, there are people who cannot initiate social interactions for themselves and need a support person to make new social connections in contexts like the ones described here. This might look like:
nonverbal people who need a speaking person to explain how they communicate to new people, whether that's AAC or through other nonverbal forms of communication
people who need an interpreter, including D/deaf, blind, and deafblind people, some developmentally disabled people, and people who don't speak the dominant language
people with TBI, schizophrenia, bipolar, current/former brain tumors, autistic ppl, & many more, who may need support in social situations to prevent harm to self or others. This may be because they are vulnerable to exploitation, they don't understand normative social boundaries, they're at risk of having the cops called on them for saying harmlessly crazy stuff or stimming too loud, etcetera.
It *is* true that support is direly lacking for these people, causing many of them to be *extremely* isolated. This is part of why it frustrates me when people who absolutely do have these capabilities abdicate their responsibility to do so. I've known lots of people in the categories I described above. Most of them would be over the moon to be approached in a social situation like this, and many of them have gotten very creative trying to get their social needs met!! Stop pretending you are completely helpless because you "lack social capital"-- many people who *do* need that level of support show more initiative than this!!
As a teacher, it profoundly annoys me when people take on this educational philosophy of exclusive practicality. Everything we learn must be justified by "when will we use this in real life." What a dull, incurious view of life these people have.
You only need to know the science necessary for cooking, or maybe the chemicals in cleaning supplies. You will never be in amazement at the building blocks of the world. You don't need to know how stars are formed; you can't even see them where you live. You just need to know the geography of the land you live on. You will never see anything beyond your lot in life. Why learn complex mathematical equations to test your mental skills? You only need to know how to add and subtract when your boss gives you a paycheck. Why learn history - those people have nothing to do with you - you need to learn how to fill out a tax form.
And English class? Everyone knows that books aren't real life. Your boss at your job will never ask you to identify the theme, so you don't need to know how. Humans have composed literature for as long as we've been able to speak, but that's all going to end with you. You only need to know how to do your job. That's "real life."
Just learn something for the sake of knowledge and stop complaining that I'm trying to educate you.
Well, the thing is your students are in compulsory schooling, where they have limited or no control over what they're learning. So if what they're learning isn't something necessary, isn't something that's practically useful, (and, by assumption, doesn't find the subject intrinsically interesting)
Then their experience of the subject is that yet another adult making them pay attention to some random bullshit and then punish them if they don't absorb enough of it.
It's hard, of course, to explain how their life will be enriched by understanding early history, or the writing of Chaucer, but if you can't show them the gold you're searching for, why would they consider it fun to dig in the dirt?
"Random bullshit" no it isn't. They are learning mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. These are the BASIC building blocks of an intellectual life.
Once we study ANY subject deeply, we realize that what you learn of it in your general k-12 education is really the baseline. Removing any of these is setting students up for serious gaps in knowledge.
Your attitude represents the kind of anti-intellectualism that fascists love.
I know you think you're being profound when you say we have to "show them the gold," this is the gold. Free "compulsory" public education is an enormous privilege. People who demand we justify every single lesson in exactly how it will be used are playing into the hands of the Very Real powers which want to dismantle public education.
I apologize if this came off aggressive, but genuinely the idea that public education is a cruel obligation rather than an enormous social good is baffling.
Believe me, I agree with you about the value of an education! These are the building blocks of an intellectual life.
The students you're teaching don't know that, anymore than they know the subject itself! They need to be taught why they're learning these things, why they should care, beyond "for the sake of knowledge", because that justify why you're teaching this in particular. Why are they learning about 20th century history, and not how to speak Ladino, if both are good to learn for knowledge's sake alone? Well, because the events of the last century are important to understanding modern events! It's useful, there's a reason for learning specifically this over other subjects, and if they aren't told this they'll never know and never care. They'll assume that what does and doesn't get taught is a matter of Old People Taste and that it's all random bullshit.
Compulsory education is one of the biggest advancements in human quality of life! But it's still important to keep in mind that the students, from their perspective, have little control over their lives and spend most of their day to day being shuffled around at the whims of others for arbitrary reasons. Clearing up that misunderstanding that education is also like that is a blessing to them.
(compare and contrast getting a vaccine â it's very much in the child's interest to not get the mumps! Yet if you don't carefully explain, in a way they understand, why you're giving them an injection, then from their point of view they're just getting pierced by a scary needle!)
With respect, while of course I want education to be freely accessible to all people of all ages, we are doing everyone a disservice if we refuse to acknowledge that compulsory state schooling is a major vector of coercion and violence. This most notably targets Black and disabled students, who are in much greater physical danger from school resource officers and special ed staff, but I don't think I know anyone who didn't at least *witness* a teacher verbally abusing a child while they were in school. So yes, most of your students are likely coming to you with their baseline understanding of school as something unpleasant that is forced on them, sometimes physically, oftentimes at great detriment to their life and health-- when these experiences of violence are so pervasive, the idea that compulsory state schooling is a "cruel obligation" isn't a misunderstanding that needs to be corrected, its a reality that needs to be changed.
btw I forgot to mention I finished Sophie Lewis's book Abolish the Family and it truly was very thought-provoking. I need to noodle a lot more on the last chapter, which provided both the most helpful definition of kinship I've found and also the hardest provocation for abolition: basically she describes kinship as a relation of care that is non-contingent. In other words, it is a relationship you know you can draw on to receive care and the other person WILL provide it whether they "want" to or not, simply because this type of relationship obliges them to provide care.
Then Lewis asks us (like quite literally in question format) if we are willing to give up on non-contingency. She doesn't totally say what that would mean or look like, and she herself seems unsure if it's desirable or possible. And it's true when I read it that I was immediately thinking that as well: would this even be possible, and if so, would we actually want it? And then the book ended, lol. But truly, a really interesting and worthwhile read.
I'm male in some kind of sense that means something specific, but there's not anything about me that's "Transcendentally Male" any more than the Chrysler building is "Transcendentally Art Deco."
Like, it's actually a building made of steel and glass and shit, right? It's not made of some kind of substance called "Art Deco." There's no single physical piece of it you can point to and say Art Deco always has this thing and Modernism (or Brutalism etc etc etc) never does; there is no exclusively specific diagnostic feature that makes a building Art Deco or Not Art Deco. The only thing that makes it Art Deco is that there is a broad social consensus, most particularly among those who are in the business of identifying types of architecture, that it is an example of the movement. There are a lot of intentional and aesthetic and geometrical differences between Art Deco and Modernism, but no single one of them renders a perfect division.
In the same way there is no unifying phylogenetics to gender; there is a constellation of things that are most common among men or that tend to be used as signifiers of manhood, but none of it *means* unequivocally that someone is a man except if they got up and directly said "yeah, I'm a man." The category of gender is thus inseparable from that linguistic framework - it is not just a phenomenological identity of felt gender experience but a specific use of language in the act of self-description. (Many people are saying this, see Judith Butler).
But I think a lot of people are uneasy with the Butlerian framework because there is a common conception that it implies gender is *only* linguistic, that is, that the language arrives tabula rasa without any externalities in the form of other experienced phenomena, which I think lies at odds with the way a lot of people experience their own gender. Rather, I think it is important to specify that the affinities, correlations, and associations normatively carried by a term in one's surrounding social, cultural, and political context collectively form a multidimensional statistical object - we can call this a locus - that can be precisely delineated from similar loci, and are synonymous with that locus' associated terminology and its semantic embedding in related cultural concepts.
Take, for example, the subtle differences between someone being described as "male," "a male," "a man," and "[having] a masculine gender," which all have very broadly similar implications under a binarist framework, but which become extremely specific and different in an individualist conception of gender where gender identity holds its basis as a unique set of qualia or affinities which differs from individual to individual. (e.g. I know many people who identify as transmasc but not a trans man, or a (trans) man but not a masculine man, or having a masculine gender but not a man and not trans either).
These differences are linguistic and performative as well as individual/phenomenological, simultaneously. We can say that no two people have exactly the same experience of gender and that gender is most evident to the person whose gender it is (that is, we can accept that gender has a phenomenological component that is only apparent or most apparent to the individual, i.e. gender is an internal feeling or affect) while still asserting that the performative/linguistic component of gender is identical with the gender itself. I am still "a man" in the same sense as anyone else who claims to be "a man," even if the way we reify manhood differs.
Inversely, we can still decide that the individual should have autonomous control over the gender identity they choose to perform/instantiate (rather than leaving that up to public consensus or another socially-imposed taxonomy) while still using the term "gender" to refer to groups of people who share a common identity, rather than all gender identities necessarily being disparate and independent qualia only known to the individual. Self evidently, I know "what it feels like to be a man" in a real and meaningful sense because I know what it feels like to be me, and I'm a man (= the type of person to genuinely claim to be a man, as I have done and continue to do).
So to similarly claim something like "gender is aesthetic," it's not a shallow and exclusive claim that gender is only aesthetic and never involves inner consciousness or linguistic performance, but rather it is to say that aesthetics, language/speech/performance, and conscious/affective phenomena are all domains that can be structured in isomorphic ways. Gender is aesthetic *and* gender is linguistic *and* gender is performance *and* gender is a self-evident metaphysical phenomenon.
I'm just kind of tired of these mutually compatible ways of thinking about gender get treated as if they're diametrically opposed. All of it is part of the same dialectic!
It does not benefit transphobes to give trans people access to systemic male privilege, and theyâre not bothered by contradicting themselves to deny that access.
Transphobes will deny trans women from access to male privilege (even though they claim trans women are men) and they will deny trans men from access to male privilege (even though trans men actually are men). They will also deny nonbinary people from access to male privilege, whether they are transfem or transmasc or neither.
Systemic male privilege is not intended or used as an inclusive privilege. And it works in the same areas trans people are systematically oppressed in, from financial to legal to medical to mass violence to interpersonal violence. Even a trans person who may intermittently experience some aspect of male privilege will be denied it in many other situations and also denied it at any hint of their trans status or full identity.
Transphobia has no qualms with treating trans people as whatever schrödingerâs gender suits their goals of eradicating trans people, and that includes denying trans people access to gender or sex-based privileges whenever possible.
someone whose never lived anywhere where malaria / dengue / chikingunya is endemic: we need to love mosquitoes more!!! they're so important to the ecosystem you just need to get over those massive death tolls, the only disease that really needs to be cured is cancer
i know its mostly contrarianism, but the rates at which mosquitoes breed in major cities in the tropics is just as destabilising to local ecosystems lol. surprisingly, every shallow pond, sewer and garden in new delhi was not meant to breed mosquitoes.
if weâre doing supply chain discourse some of us may benefit from recalling that the actual processes of production and how those shape organisational questions are very very different from the casual way we invoke a âsupply chainâ etc. this interview with robert linhart is a really good primer on such problems
It seems to me that we have a very superficial and hazy understanding of the working class and production. More than a century after Capital, there remains a largely unexplored world to be discovered.
And often we hold on to ideas, definitions, and descriptions from that moment when Marxism was born and first encountered the working-class movement. Well, the world has changed since Marxâs epoch. And if it is true, as Marx said, that the relations of production are the heart of society, of the system of exploitation, it seems to me that it is difficult to form an opinion no matter the subject (ideology, the state, superstructure, international relations, the general tendencies of societiesâŠ) without researching relatively concrete (and up to date) knowledge of relations of production â of the real way men produce objects.
⊠Iâd first like to comment on a point you raise that also seems important to me too: the difficulty of acquiring knowledge of these changes and, more generally, the difficult of acquiring knowledge of the production process. This might seem altogether strange, but if we suppose someone wanted to provide an audience interested in these issues (students for example) with an account of the way in which we produce, say, textiles in France (the scale and of units of production, the production process itself, how labor is broken-down and standardized, the division of labor between different enterprises and within each of them, the description of machinery and motionâŠ.), it couldnât be done. Iâve had this problem myself and Iâve resolved it only imperfectly. Itâs practically impossible to find works on large industries that are simple, descriptive, and (I insist on this point) global in scope; on the complete process by which we move from raw material to a finished productâŠ
⊠To produce an object on an industrial scale in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, men needed to get hold of raw materials, work it directly, passing discontinuously through the different stages of the division of labor. With the development of chemistry, organic chemistry, and the petrochemical and steel industries, we find ourselves faced with units of production that no longer correspond with this schema, which arose out of craft manufacturing and the ancient trades. These new types of units of production consist of the achievements of the laboratory expanded to the scale of an actual industrial sector. What is a chemical plant? It is the reproduction on an industrial scale of retorts, test tubes, mixtures. The reactions are the same, although we go from a few grams to thousands of tonnes. Once chemical experiments prove conclusive, we move on to the construction of these industrial installationsâŠ
If we want to understand something, I think thereâs nothing to do but go see it oneself and to patiently collect the most direct knowledge p
I think also related to like, "let's talk about what production actually is for a second" its important to bring in also that most modern global production doesnt fucking need to happen.
From where im sitting right now I can see no less than 9 pieces of plastic that dont need to exist. Not just, "this could be replaced by a non-plastic material", literally there is no excuse for these items EXISTING because theyre all redundant packaging for goods that don't require it, or only require it because it was made very far away and is convenient for distribution (the plastic wrapper on this package of toilet paper i need to put away).
Let it always be said first and foremost that anarchy isnt a program, in our wildest possibilities it is an off ramp, for most people it is a helpful philosophy. "Ugh sweaty hierarchy doesnt mean absence of organization of course we'll have syndicates" mfers have as little to do with me as the rest of that bs cuz utopian cope doesnt help either.
But I do genuinely care about "production" (see blog description) because I would like myself and the furthest reaches of my social connections to continue living as the imperial core extraction that sustains us crumbles (hopefully with some extra stomps and pushes). I care about "production" because I would like right now to live a life that is less beholden to the violence that surrounds us and I want this world to be full of maroon villages.
I cant speak to the general state of humanity, what i can say is that even mostly "normie" people in my IRL life are incredibly hype about skills like optometry sorry its just too hilariously relevant to my actual life/projects to not keep bringing up like WE OUT HERE, about sustainable food and gridless utilities and and and, about reclamation of where their stuff comes from, and are mostly too bogged down by imperial core poverty spending 50hr work weeks making food that mostly gets thrown away from ingredients produced by slavery in the global south, or service/carework roles that were created by imperial core problems in the first place, to keep their kids in 2nd hand clothes produced by slavery in the global south, because they live in terror of a "child welfare" system that only exists because of imperial core problems
It is almost incommunicable how much modern production is truly absurd and to talk about important objects we first have to discard literally billions of pointless objects and contextual roles.
i think this is where me and linhart part ways because he is still a marxist in a fairly orthodox lineage - he comes out of the maoist sects that came out of may â68 tho that interview includes some helpful critical notes on that experience - i think marxist analyses can provide some really helpful imminent critique for movements of workers subsumed under capitalismâs production (which is, yknow, basically everyone reading this) but i actually dont want my analyses, my plans, projects, action and imagining to be fully subsumed by that lolâŠ
âŠ. but as you point out âas the imperial core extraction that sustains us crumbles (hopefully with some extra stomps and pushes)â like we are not having these conversations in the abstract the machine is not sustainable and is breaking down day by day and that break down is accelerated by the various kinds of action that are being taken against colonial extraction every day and i feel like we have a bunch of models for the realisation of some alternative way of living as imminent to our action against this world this is 101 lol
The last thing ill add, to illustrate how truly non-abstract this is, is that hurricane helene absolutely trashed the US supply of IV fluids and the vast majority of people (the general public AND most rank and file clinical workers in large workplaces) were completely insulated from this fact due to the purchasing power of the united states. Supply chain disasters happen every year; most people in the imperial core just dont notice because as of now they primarily affect a few points on The Economy (currently inflated by AI) & the workdays of a small handful of people who Buy Stuff For Regions/Institutions/Etc as a job and cycle out of the news quickly.
US hegemony is crumbling and that purchasing power is starting to falter; & in general the power of the imperial core to displace our local disasters to the global south via commerce/supply lines is waning (as it should).
I unfortunately don't have a source bc i know this info firsthand from contacts in these fields; idk that anyone's written it up exactly as ive seen it happen :/
Having your blog termed or experiencing social exclusion is not "social murder", even if you're being unjustly targeted. Social murder refers to actual premature death caused by social forces-- for example, homeless people freezing to death, poor people dying earlier because of smoking, or trans people killing themselves because of lack of access to gender affirming care.
I understand how that got distorted into the way it's currently being used on trans tumblr-- if someone is reliant on online sex work, commissions, publishing writing on their patreon, etc for their livelihood (as is the case for many trans women because of how transmisogyny impacts their hireability) intentional social exclusion CAN lead to homelessness and death. But I've now seen it used several times to describe situations that literally boil down to "my blog was terminated because I repeatedly and knowingly violated the TOS" or "people don't like the way I treat them so they don't spend time with me" and I think that's incredibly disrespectful in the context of the original meaning of the phrase. Trans women are one of the most vulnerable groups to social murder, and it almost never involves getting your blog deleted. If you're alive to say "I was socially murdered", no you weren't.
the pretence online that leftism doesnt mean anything is pure cope. person holding to specific iteration of shared norms is mad others do not. doesnt mean thereâs nothing being referred to why else would u be complaining lol
sociologically it gets circular to define as things tend to sociologically. go to any large urban conglomeration and u can find public cultures attempting to (in long-historical terms) complete the french revolution. this includes marxian communists to most anarchists to a swathe of liberals and âprogressivesâ. intellectually or ideologically i would characterise these cultures more in terms of shared problems or tensions than values or ideas - eg a critique of popular norms while attempting to mobilise such normative publics for social change. there are a range of available terms of dismissal or hostility for when ppl feel one pole of such a tension has been overstated at the expense of the other - such as, random example, when u feel a vague commitment to leftist culture as culture overtakes more intellectually detailed claims about the ends of such cultures, u might call them âleftistsâ
really like this definition. im actually really interested now in the tensions re:urban given the era of maoist insurgency in south asia, more ideologically diverse latam formations of self governance along with mst / via campesino rural workers movements, and and whether we assign them to the go to the village sr logics or incorporate them in the tradition of modernisation?
this is a really good question - i deliberately attempted to not provide a strict definition because of such sites where these characteristics get more strained (we might also speak of nationalism as a european revolutionary legacy eg). interestingly u have picked two examples where i think almost everyone would accept a characterisation of these movements as âleftistâ - maoism is esp is insistent on its âproletarianâ character and leadership* - but there are wide swathes of rural politics in these locales and elsewhere that have more complex relations to âthe leftâ as a modern/ising project. even just speak of eg the resistance put up by traditionalist rural authority against more modern or capitalist or state led agricultural models would encompass gandhian idealisations of village economies, the 80s post-Emergency mass farmer protest movement in india, its contemporary Communist-led cousins - drifting elsewhere we could speak of eg the uprising of tupac amaru against spanish rule, a good example insofar as the extent of its âtraditionalismâ depends on the extent to which you think pre colonial inca state formations survived the conquest. it would also be easy to ignore the difference between this sorta uprising and eg the interest v modern intellectuals like clastres takes in less centralised forms of indigenous social life further removed from more centralised state formations but nonetheless self identifying as in some sense traditional
besides this there is ofc resistance on traditionalist estates both stuff like the classical âpeasant revoltâ in both europe and the colonial world (often defining itself in religious terms - to what extent is this âtraditionalistâ?) but also movements on settler estates which have a very different relationship to urban radicalism. and finally ofc the stated relationship of a movement to classical modern radicalisms may not be what its intellectual representatives claim it is - many maoist movts globally eg arise in the same regions as âclassicalâ peasant revolts or (i was once told) even historic anarchist mass movements, which begin to raise questions about their ideological self definition in a proper hierarchical deference to proletarian leadership. the extent to which these fit or break or bend our conceptions of the âleftâ is actually very difficult to generalise on precisely because they are sites on the edge or periphery of modernisation as a global/ising process - that is, what debord calls âthe commercial unification of the planetâ, imperialism, the world system.
oh i picked them on purpose as they seem leftist and like i said represent urban conglomerations "going to the village" to find communism etc or as you described are often in continuation modernisation in totality. but yes the tension in cadre and leadership can be vast~ here. often revealed in priorities during retrenchment.
yes yes ofc. fwiw i have read some material attempting to account for sorta âalternative modernitiesâ - silvia rivera cusicanqui talks about circuits of indigenous material culture in rural bolivia in these terms. but on her terms these circuits are operating in and thru the circuits of the colonial economy as such. the modernisation question does seem to consistently invoke a relationship to european colonialism - i personally suspect greater attention to eg the economic worlds attached to 14th century chinese steel foundries which are clearly industrial on a scale easily equivalent to eg 19th century manchester might suggest some different conceptions but here the sheer historical scale becomes unwieldy for most movement theorising.
[âMany of my clients never or rarely experienced love from their parents. Instead, because of their parentsâ parts, the clients were objectified in some way as children. For example, if your father needed you to take care of him emotionally, he only valued the parts of you that could do thatâcaretaking, achieving, or sexual partsâand you had to exile your own vulnerability. To those exiles, love means taking on the overwhelming responsibility of trying futilely to take care of someone. If you were objectified in a sexual way by a parent, you will have exiles that believe love means danger and humiliation. If your mother couldnât stand for you to leave her, love means sacrificing all your hopes and ambitions for another person.
The point here is that many of our exiles are in a bind. They crave being loved but are convinced that love involves a great price. I have worked with many clients who, when they finally got close to a childlike exile, found that it was terrified or shut down. The part could not even trust the love of the Self. In these cases, it took many sessions in which my client was gently present with no pressure before the exile began to respond even slightly to the Selfâs love. Imagine how having such a scared and raw basement child, who thinks of love as engulfing or perilous, would impact your ability to be intimate with someone.â]
richard c. schwartz, from you are the one youâve been waiting for: bringing courageous love to intimate relationships, 2008
Why are many dating practices a throwback to an earlier era?
Heterosexual women of a progressive bent often say they want equal partnerships with men. But dating is a different story entirely. The women I interviewed for a research project and book expected men to ask for, plan, and pay for dates; initiate sex; confirm the exclusivity of a relationship; and propose marriage. After setting all of those precedents, these women then wanted a marriage in which they shared the financial responsibilities, housework, and child care relatively equally. Almost none of my interviewees saw these dating practices as a threat to their feminist credentials or to their desire for egalitarian marriages. But they were wrong.
As a feminist sociologist, Iâve long been interested in how gender influences our behavior in romantic relationships. I was aware of the research that showed greater gains in gender equality at work than at home. Curious to explore some of the reasons behind these numbers, I spent the past several years talking with people about their dating lives and what they wanted from their marriages and partnerships. The heterosexual and LGBTQ people I interviewedâmore than 100 in totalâwere highly educated, professional-track young adults who lived in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. This was not a cross section of America, for certain, but I did expect to hear progressive views. Most wanted equal partnerships where they could share both financial and family responsibilities. Almost everyone I interviewed was quite vocal in their support of gender equality and didnât shy away from the feminist label.
However, I noticed a glaring disconnect between the straight womenâs views on marriage and their thoughts on dating. Once these women were married, it was difficult to right the ship, so to speak. The same gender stereotypes that they adopted while dating played out in their long-term partnerships.
Three-quarters of Millennials in America support gender equality at work and home and agree that the ideal marriage is an equitable one. Consequently, I expected the young women I interviewed to epitomize feminist liberation. Yet, when they thought of equality among men and women, they focused more on professional opportunities than interpersonal dynamics. Americans with a college education now get married in their early 30s on average, as young adults put their love life on hold while they invest in their education and establish a career. Given the significant time, money, and effort they put into building this career, the women I spoke with expected to partner with people who would support their ambitious professional goals. The men said they desired and respected these independent, high-achieving women and actually saw them as more compatible partners as a result.
And yet in a throwback to an earlier era, many women I spoke with enacted strict dating rules. âItâs a deal breaker if a man doesnât pay for a date,â one woman, aged 29, told me. A 31-year-old said that if a man doesnât pay, âthey just probably donât like you very much.â A lot of men, they assumed, were looking for nothing more than a quick hookup, so some of these dating rituals were tests to see whether the man was truly interested in a commitment. A third woman, also 31, told me, âI feel like men need to feel like they are in control, and if you ask them out, you end up looking desperate and itâs a turnoff to them.â
On dates, the women talked about acting demure, and allowing men to do more of the talking. Women, they said, were more attractive to men when they appeared unattainable, so women preferred for the men to follow up after a date. None of the women considered proposing marriage; that was the manâs job. âI know it feels counterintuitive ⊠Iâm a feminist,â the first woman said. âBut I like to have a guy be chivalrous.
Not all of the heterosexual women I spoke with felt strongly about these dating rules. âGetting married and having kids were probably, if they were even on the list, like number 99 and 100 on the list of 100,â one told me. âI think the men I was with knew. It would just be ridiculous if they were on a bended knee offering me a ring.â Yet even the few women who fell into this category tended to go along with traditional dating rituals anyway, arguing that the men they dated wanted them and the women âjust didnât care enoughâ to challenge the status quo.
The heterosexual men I interviewed claimed that a womanâs assertiveness took the pressure off them. While some liked paying for dates, feeling that the gesture was a nice way to show they cared, others were more resistant. One man told me he splits the cost of a date âFifty-fifty. That goes right in line with my theory of the person I consider my equal. Just because I carry the penis does not mean that I need to buy your food for you. Youâre a woman, youâre educated or want to be educated, you want to be independentâtake your stance.â
But as the relationship progressed, the men I spoke with held persistent double standards. They expected women to walk a fine line between enough and too much sexual experience. They admitted to running into conflicts with âstrong-willedâ women. Men also wanted to be taller, stronger, and more masculine than their partners. And many of the men expected women to take their last names after marriage.
When men and women endorsed these traditional gender roles early in a relationship, undoing those views in marriage was difficult. The married men I interviewed often left caregiving and housework to the women, while the husbands considered themselves breadwinners and decision makers. This behavior fell in line with national trends. As American time-use surveys show, women still do about twice as much unpaid labor in the home as men.
One woman said of her husband, âHeâll take our son on bike rides with him. But in the middle of the night, Iâm the one getting up. Like for me to be out like this on this interview, I had to make sure there was dinner stuff for him.â
A man expressed his resentment at not having an egalitarian relationship, saying, âThatâs not the relationship I want for myself.â Yet he later added that his partner should do more of the household labor, because she was more invested in a clean house.
The LGBTQ people I interviewed offered a different partnership model. They wanted no part of the dating scripts they saw as connected to gender inequality. âWe have explicitly said weâre not normal or traditional, so we can write the script ourselves. We donât have to buy into this belief that the guy is gonna be kinda dopey, but well meaning, and enjoy sports, and the woman is gonna withhold sex and demand to have things paid for,â one woman told me.
Because many LGBTQ relationships do not rely on well-established ideologies, norms are often considered, questioned, and then rejected, with the aim of making space for egalitarian practices instead. In the process, many of the couples I spoke with incorporated the elements they felt were important to a successful relationship, emphasizing constant communication, evaluation, and negotiation. The goal was greater individuality and equality, and they actively worked to balance their own needs with the needs of their partners. As the woman above said, âLetâs craft our own relationship.â
Just as noteworthy, the LGBTQ interviewees set up the expectations of equality from the outset of dating, not after it. This approach shifted their understanding of what was possible for intimate relationships, and they, for the most part, had more equal, long-term relationships as a result.
I really wish the term "aspergers" hadnt gone out of fashion. Like I know the high functioning low functioning distinction is artificial and environmental and etc etc but like. It feels like the current use of the term "autism" is an exercise in communicating poorly
Hmm well okay the false dichotomy is maybe more between "high support needs and intellectual disability" vs "low support needs and no intellectual disability" in that there's a lot of people with high support needs but no intellectual disability, usually for having bad sensory or emotional regulation issues.
This perspective misses that autism is about developmental *asymmetry*, not about overall deficit. For example, I'm an autistic person who is able to hold down a job, maintain social relationships, navigate the world largely independently, etcetera. I do these things with much more difficulty than the average person, but I can do them! I also have such severe sensory issues and struggles with certain types of executive function that I need a feeding tube because I almost died from not being able to cook food that I could eat. I have meltdowns if certain things touch my face, including face masks, which has caused a lot of issues for me in the last few years because people do not believe I could struggle with meltdowns based on the rest of my skills. I know someone who has founded nonprofits, is able to pass as more or less "normal" in a wide variety of situations, and also needs a care aid to prevent themself from giving themself daily head injuries.
I do strongly agree that being able to talk about autism in more nuanced and specific ways is useful, and that a lot of harm comes from people conflating their very different experiences-- but I think "aspergers" obfuscates the actual salient differences in how autistic people move through the world and causes more harm in this way, not less. Autistic communities have already developed quite a bit of language to talk about these differences-- LSN, MSN, and HSN as you noted, and while those aren't always the best for talking about developmental *asymmetry*, this can be addressed by just talking about specific access needs and capabilities (e.g. I have high support needs around food specifically, but low support needs in most areas). The fact that people don't use the more nuanced terminology available/don't use it accurately indicates to me that even if I agreed with the framework, bringing back "aspergers" would probably not help clarify things very much đ
I get the sense that a lot of people currently talking about gender on here conceptualize masculinity exclusively as a kind of platonic ideal, either in a straightforwardly sexist way or in the vein of the posts that are like "'qualities of masculinity' and its just a list of traits that women have".
It's not very useful imo to think of masculinity as a concept that exists nebulously as a singularly defined thing, or even multiply defined thing. Rather, masculinities are the norms and practices of men and masc people in a given community of practice. Masculinity is what masc people *do*. For example, there's extensive scholarship on Black masculinities in various forms. An ethnographer might use "queer masculinities" to describe the practices and norms of certain communities of GNC gay men-- or GNC gay women!
Obviously there's no *inherent* difference between genders. But equally obviously, there are immense social and material consequences to the practices and norms that comprise masculinities. It seems much more useful to think about masculinity/masculinities as something actively being constructed every day through people's actions, because that gives us better tools and opportunities to create positive masculinities (that is, communities of practice where men & masc people's norms and practices support gender liberation).
"The study that had the most direct impact on the psychiatric professionâ as well as public consciousnessâat this time was David Rosenhanâs (1973) classic research On Being Sane in Insane Places which found that psychiatrists could not distinguish between ârealâ and âpseudoâ patients presenting at psychiatric hospitals in the United States. All of Rosenhanâs âpseudoâ patients (college students/researchers involved in the experiment) were admitted and given a psychotic label, and all the subsequent behaviour of the researchersâincluding their note-takingâwas labelled by staff as further symptoms of their disorder (for a summary, see Burstow 2015: 75-76). This research was a culmination of earlier studies on labelling and mental illness which had begun in the 1960s with Irving Goffman (1961) and Thomas Scheff (1966). Goffmanâs (1961) ethnographic study of psychiatric incarceration demonstrated many of the features which Rosenhanâs study would later succinctly outline, including the arbitrary nature of psychiatric assessment, the labelling of patient behaviour as further evidence of âmental illness,â and the processes of institutional conformity by which the inmates learned to accept such labels if they wanted to have any chance of being released from the institution at a later date. Scheffs (1966) work on diagnostic decision making in psychiatry formulated a general labelling theory for the sociology of mental health. Again, his research found that psychiatrists made arbitrary and subjective decisions on those designated as âmentally ill,â sometimes retaining people in institutions even when there was no evidence to support such a decision. Psychiatrists, he argued, relied on a common sense set of beliefs and practices rather than observable, scientific evidence. Scheff (1966) concluded that the labelling of a person with a âmental illnessâ was contingent on the violation of social norms by low-status rule-breakers who are judged by higher status agents of social control (in this case, the psychiatric profession). Thus, according to these studies, the nature of âmental illnessâ is not a fixed object of medical study but rather a form of âsocial devianceââa moral marker of societal infraction by the powerful inflicted on the powerless."
-Bruce Cohen, Psychiatric Hegemony, 2016
[âRepertoires and philosophical approaches usually flowed from north to south, not the other way around. Several people told me they believed their movements had unconsciously taken on positions developed in the First World that may not be so applicable in the Global South. One Egyptian revolutionary put it to me this way: âIn New York or Paris, if you do a horizontal, leaderless, and post-ideological uprising, and it doesnât work out, you just get a media or academic career afterward. Out here in the real world, if a revolution fails, all your friends go to jail or end up dead.â He was pointing to something that nagged at him, and me, and many others who have taken time to look back at political struggles since the 1960s. Is it perhaps that a lot of these approaches were developed by a New Left, back in the US and Western Europe, that didnât fundamentally care if they won? Some of the figures in those movements expressed sentiments that suggested as much. Wini Breines wrote that it was correct that they were often willing to sacrifice victories to remain loyal to their organizational or prefigurative principles.
Somewhere like Egypt, it really matters if you win. But Hossam âthe Bedouinâ el-Hamalawy, another revolutionary from the same country, disagrees slightly on the importance of struggle in the First World. âIt is foolish to dismiss the working class in the West, because my liberation as someone in the Global South will never be achieved unless power falls away from the Global North.â
Iranian American sociologist Asef Bayat, who lived through both the Iranian Revolution in 1979 in Tehran and the 2011 uprising in Cairo, makes sure to distinguish between subjective and objective conditions for the uprisings starting in 2010. On the one hand, the so-called Arab Spring took place in opposition to neoliberal policies, but it also took place in a society shaped by neoliberal subjectivity. It was carried out by individuals with a certain way of looking at the world. âThe Arab revolutions lacked the kind of radicalismâin political and economic outlookâthat marked most other twentieth-century revolutions,â he wrote in his book Revolution Without Revolutionaries. âUnlike the revolutions of the 1970s that espoused a powerful socialist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist and social justice impulse, Arab revolutionaries were preoccupied more with the broad issues of human rights, political accountability, and legal reform. The prevailing voices, secular and Islamist alike, took free market, property relations, and neoliberal rationality for granted.â A generation of individuals raised to view everything as if it were a business enterprise was de-radicalized, came to view this global order as ânatural,â and became unable to imagine what it takes to carry out a true revolution.â]
vincent bevins, from if we burn: the mass protest decade and the missing revolution, 2023
