people who do a PhD are running from something
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Jules of Nature
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

No title available
styofa doing anything

shark vs the universe
Acquired Stardust

blake kathryn
🪼
ojovivo
One Nice Bug Per Day

ellievsbear
Claire Keane

if i look back, i am lost
Stranger Things
Today's Document

@theartofmadeline

Product Placement
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

PR's Tumblrdome

seen from Singapore
seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from China

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Singapore

seen from United States

seen from Russia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@twilightfawn15
people who do a PhD are running from something
at this point a lot of you would cheer if terfs started pushing to relabel bathrooms as "afab" and "amab"
the arguments for "afab only" spaces are identical in both form and function to terf bathroom arguments, the language used is just "progressive"
I'm asking this genuinely, as a 19 yo with no education in economics and a pretty surface level understanding of socialism: can you explain the whole Bananas discourse in a way someone like me might understand? In my understanding it's just "This is just a product we can give up to create better worker conditions and that's fine" but apparently that's not the full picture?
alright so some pretty important background to all this is that we're all talking about the fact that bananas, grown in the global south, are available year-round at extremely low prices all around europe and the USA. it's not really about bananas per so--the banana in this discourse is a synechdoche for all the economic benefits of imperialism.
so how are cheap bananas a result of imperialism? first of all i want to tackle a common and v. silly counterargument: 'oh, these ridiculous communists think it's imperialist for produce to be shipped internationally'. nah. believing that this is the communist objection requires believing in a deeply naive view of international traide. this view goes something like 'well, if honduras has lots of bananas, and people in the usa want bananas and are willing to pay for them, surely everyone wins when the usa buys bananas!'.
there are of course two key errors here and they are both packed into 'honduras has lots of bananas'. for a start, although the bananas are grown in honduras, honduras doesn't really 'have' them, because the plantations are mostly owned by chiquita (formerly known as united fruit) dole, del monte, and other multinationals--when they're not, those multinationals will usually purchase the bananas from honduran growers and conduct the export themselves. and wouldn't you know it, it's those intervening middleman steps--export, import, and retail, where the vast majority of money is made off bananas! so in the process of a banana making its way from honduras to a 7/11, usamerican multinationals make money selling the bananas to usamerican importers who make money selling them to usamerican retailers who make money selling them to usamerican customers.
when chiquita sells a banana to be sold in walmart, a magic trick is being performed: a banana is disappearing from honduras, and yet somehow an american company is paying a second american company for it! this is economic imperialism, the usamerican multinational extracting resources from a nation while simultaneously pocketing the value of those resources.
why does the honduran government allow this? if selling bananas is such a bad deal for the nation, why do they continue to export millions of dollars of banans a year? well, obviously, there's the fact that if they didn't, they would face a coup. the united states is more than willing to intervene and cause mass death and war to protect the profits of its multinationals. but the second, more subtle thing keeping honduras bound to this ridiculously unbalanced relationship is the need for dollars. because the US dollar is the global reserve currency, and the de facto currency of international trade, exporting to the USA is a basic necessity for nations like honduras, guatemala, &c. why is the dollar the global reserve currency? because of usamerican military and economic hegemony, of course. imperialism built upon imperialism!
this is unequal exchange, the neoimperialist terms of international trade that make the 'global economy' a tool of siphoning value and resources from the global south to the imperial core. & this is the second flaw to unravel in 'honduras has a lot of bananas' -- honduras only 'has a lot of bananas' because this global economic hegemony has led to vast unsustainable monoculture banana plantations to dominate the agriculture of honduras. it's long-attested how monoculture growth is unsustainable because it destroys soil and leads to easily-wiped-out-by-infection plants.
so, bananas in the USA are cheap because:
the workers that grow them are barely paid, mistreated, prevented from unionizing, and sometimes murdered
the nations in which the bananas are grown accept brutally unfair trade and tariff terms with the USA because they desperately need a supply of US dollars and so have little position to negotiate
shipping is also much cheaper than it should be because sailors are chronically underpaid and often not paid at all or forced to pay to work (!)
bananas are cheap, in conclusion, because they're produced by underpaid and brutalized workers and then imported on extortionate and unfair terms.
so what, should we all give up bananas? no, and it's a sign of total lack of understanding of socialism as a global movement that all the pearl-clutching usamericans have latched onto the scary communists telling them to stop buying bananas. communism does not care about you as a consumer. individual consumptive choices are not a meaningful arena of political action. the socialist position is not "if there was a socialist reovlution in the usa, we would all stop eating bananas like good little boys", but rather, "if there's a socialist revolution in the countries where bananas are grown, then the availability of bananas in the usa is going to drop, and if you want to be an anti-imperialist in the imperial core you have to accept that".
(this is where the second argument i see about this, 'oh what are you catholic you want me to eat dirt like a monk?' reveals itself as a silly fucking solipsistic misunderstanding)
and again, let's note that the case of the banana can very easily be generalised out to coffee, chocolate, sugar, etc, and that it's not about individual consumptive habits, but about global economic systems. if you are donkey fucking kong and you eat 100 bananas a day i don't care and neither does anyone else. it's about trying to illustrate just one tiny mundane way in which economic imperialism makes the lives of people in the global north more convenient and simpler and so of course there is enormous pushback from people who attach moral value to this and therefore feel like the mean commies are personally calling them evil for eating a nutella or whatever which is frankly pretty tiring. Sad!
tldr: it is not imperialism when produce go on boat but it is imperialism when produce grown for dirt cheap by underpaid workers in a country with a devalued currency is then bought and exported and sold by usamerican companies creating huge amounts of economic value of which the nation in which the banana was grown, let alone the people who actually fucking grew it, don't see a cent -- and this is the engine behind the cheap, available-every-day-all-year-everywhere presence of bananas in the usa (and other places!)
puts my uncomfortably wet hand on your shoulder. see here, gay boy- can i call you gay boy?
one american thing that confuses me are college application letters. why do you need to write yourself a tragic backstory to go to university, don't you have standardized exams? who's reading through all these bad high schooler essays?
as opposed to someone's essay they wrote when they were 16, which is a permanent immutable window to their soul,
everyone shut da fuck up this is the only thing that matters
Oh My God Damn
wow dude jts so awesome that your car is loud as fuck and smells worse when it drives past. thags fucking epic man. i really like how it hurts to listen to you drive past and it scares people. thats awesome man. i really like your car that makes a loud as fuck fart sound. fucking epic dude
I recently read this post by Devon Price which details its experience of coming off testosterone, and found various aspects of it quite grating. I have admired Price for several years, after reading its book Unmasking Autism which totally reframed the way I understood myself, and also occasionally reading its posts which I found comforting, since in those days I wasn't on Tumblr and encountering reasonable takes on transmisogyny from (what I then considered to be) a transmasculine perspective was rare and valuable to me. So I was surprised to read this article and feel so negative about it. (The post is 6 months old now, so I expect I may be rehashing old ground by bringing it up, but I've only been on Tumblr a few weeks and I never saw it brought up in the various other online or irl trans spaces I was in at the time so I thought I'd put my thoughts down anyway.)
The post discusses how Price had been on T for around 7 years, and fully passed as a man in public, only to to realise that it felt dysphoric from both its physical appearance and social position. It is now undergoing what it describes as a "transition/detransition/retransition/whatever the fuck you want to call it," by reverting to endogenous estrogen augmented with estrogen cream, it/its pronouns, and being "whatever the fuck I am from moment to moment, and accepting that it won’t be instantly recognizable". That's great.
My eyebrows were raised, though, by Price's saying "I think my transition has some real commonalities with those of trans women and trans feminine people," such as, "feeling joyful at being freed from the expectations of masculinity, even as it means encountering sexism a lot more," and, "though I will never be targeted by transmisogyny in the ways that my trans sisters are, I will never disavow you or my proximity to you, and I will use my new position to speak over sexist trans men and smack down other ignorant TMEs even louder." Hmm.
One has to wonder what "new position" Price is referring to here? It describes in the post itself how coming off testosterone and identifying away from manhood has reduced its social status, resulting in being treated less seriously in social situations. How could a lowering in social position empower Price to speak louder against sexist trans men? Surely another trans man is better placed to do that than any kind of non-man. The only way this statement makes sense is if Price is referring to an increased proximity to trans womanhood by virtue of the change in identity and hormone profile. I think this is reinforced by "I will never be targeted by transmisogyny in the ways that my trans sisters are," having the unspoken corollary "but I am targeted by transmisogyny all the same."
One has to read the rest of the post to find where these supposed commonalities with the transfeminine experience lie. Much space is devoted to physiological changes like skin-softening or muscle-loss (both relatable to transfems, but not really The Point) or else to improvements in vaginal health and the regaining of fertility. Talking about these could, I suppose, be construed as in poor taste given the assertion that it is a similar experience to transfems, but I am inclined to give Price the benefit of the doubt here given that it is principally a post about changes coming off T, and these are important changes, albeit ones which if anything demonstrate how different Price's "retransition" is to a transfeminine transition.
The only particular change mentioned in the post that mapped onto transfemininity was that of increasingly facing misogynystic street harassment and harassment born of the intersection between misogyny and racism, although it's hard to see how these are transfeminine experiences rather than generic experiences of those-perceived-as-women.
The real meaning, I guess, of Price's "I think my transition has some real commonalities with those of trans women and trans feminine people," comes in the list of things that haven't changed. Thicker body hair, facial hair, a lower voice, and some facial masculinisation stand out as examples that might be relatable to trans women. But whatever "commonalities" these could represent are rather hampered by the assertion that these changes are "lifelong or long-lasting, and thank god for that; I would not be as content in my funny little de-man-sition if I wasn’t holding onto some of my most coveted changes." So it is similar to a transfeminine transition in that there is e.g. facial hair, but Price does not find that facial hair distressing nor particularly want to get rid of it, nor apparently does it need to get rid of it (beyond shaving) to be read as cis female in public. As a trans woman who wants to get rid of her facial hair, who feels intense dysphoria whenever she sees it, but whose facial hair is so thick that it looks like a 5-o'clock-shadow even immediately after shaving plus a layer of concealer, I cannot say I see any commonality between Price's experience and my own.
I think, if anything, Price's post demonstrates how unlike a transfeminine transition its experience has been. One part of the post which stood out was a paragraph about Price's apparently frequent hours-long masturbation sessions. And while I think it's great that people can talk about this, and have no issues at all with Price doing so, I think if a trans woman was employed as a Professor at a prestigious educational institution like Loyola University there is no way she would risk writing something like that on her public blog. (And incidentally, I did check to see if there were any trans women employed at Loyola and could not find any, but cannot ofc be sure of that as a fact.)
Other similar examples crop up throughout the post. While living as a man, Price states that, "most hookups were surprised that I didn’t have a penis when they brought me home." Again, that's amazing, it would be great if we could all live in this world where we didn't feel that we might be murdered or imprisoned for bringing a hook-up home without disclosing our genital configurations, but some of us don't live in that world.
On another occasion Price refers to feeling free to behave again how it did as a child. "My friends and I behaved exactly like this when we were growing up. I have missed it. Being a swaying, fidgety, thousand-yard-staring girlie who eloped through public space like she owned it," it says, followed by, "as a man, I felt this kind of behavior was completely inaccessible." Given the context of this coming after Price's claim that its "retransition" gave it insight into the transfeminine experience, I find this reference to girlhood (plus the understanding that those given the social role of "man" are punished for behaving this way) to be somewhat unpleasant. "Walking down the street, I sing along to my music at full volume and feel more okay being seen," it adds. That's great, when I was 4 months into my transition I would wear a hoodie with the hood up no matter the temperature and speak as quietly as possible to avoid drawing attention to the very masculine features that Price is so proud of retaining.
A particularly odd paragraph is used to explain the increase in sexism faced by Price after no-longer identifying as a man. Price states that it had been using the term "detransition" when presenting as a man, and no-one objected. But as soon as it underwent its own "detransition" it started to get backlash from transfeminists calling it a "grifter". Price characterises this as a non-man being criticised for something a man can do with impunity, and therefore sexism. But this characterisation of transfeminists' behaviour hardly makes any sense. The idea that transfeminists are more lenient to men than they are to non-men (even those who do not face transmisogyny) is totally absurd and bears no resemblance to reality. Is it not much more likely transfeminists consider statements about "detransition" from a trans person to be far less notable or worthy of critique than statements made on that topic by a "detransitioner"? Price's framing of its "fellow trans feminists" as misogynistic is also a more-than-a-little concerning in light of everything else.
But really, all of these things I've mentioned were not the main source of my discomfort with this post. That came when Price said this:
After many years of trying, it seems to me that ‘manhood’ amounts to mostly this: harnessing the power that one holds over other people, particularly women, and repressing one’s weakness so that societal power does not go away.
And yeah, there's a lot of truth in that, but how did Price not know this already? To fully succeed at being a man requires you to oppress. Many an uncracked egg was transmisogynised in her youth because of her failure to oppress. I am one of those. Even well before puberty, I was telling off other boys for making sexist jokes or comments, the result of which was bullying, social exclusion and early-onset transmisogyny. I failed to be a man before I could even get started, because you are not allowed to fully be a man if you don't partake in the oppression of women.
Price says, "I was centered, uplifted, listened to, and respected when I was on T," but I was also "on T" (endogenously) and would've publicly referred to myself as a man for two decades and I was never centered, uplifted, listened to, or respected. Being "centered" is a two-way street: people give you the opportunity to take up space that could have been taken by someone else, and you take it. But in the taking of it you are centering yourself, you are a collaborator in your own centering. Testosterone doesn't magically give you "male privilege", it gives you the option of taking that privilege. And if you take that option rather than refusing it, even if you relent after some years, it says something about your character. To be clear, it is possible to be a man and be a good person, but that involves actively refusing to be centered and uplifted above women, it involves actively making yourself smaller so that women can be uplifted instead. And it seems it took Price a surprising amount of time to come to this realisation for a self-described transfeminist.
Devon Price is not a man, but all the same it was able to be a much better man than I ever was. It was able to reap the rewards of male privilege that I was never allowed to access. Devon Price is not a woman, but it is treated as a woman in society, and specifically treated as a cis woman, something I will also never be allowed to access. Price's article purports to demonstrate commonalities with the experiences of trans women, but what it actually shows is that society allows people like Price to choose between being treated as a man or as a woman, but society allows transfeminine people neither of those options.
Price states that after having experienced the social role of 'woman' and the social role of 'man' it now feels like neither, rather it feels like "a living object or eternal fantastical creature existing beyond the human inventions of species, sex, or age". And here is revealed what is really meant by being exempt from transmisogyny: it is the freedom to exist beyond the human invention of sex. Some of us aren't allowed to exist there: we want to, but we're banned. This post is written from the place we're banned from entering, while also telling us it knows how we feel and shares in our struggle. Thanks, Devon, that really means a lot...
Your last prayer—ten thousand years late(r)
one thing about me is that I'm looking stuff up. you mentioned something and I don't know it? I am pulling out my phone and googling that shit. an actor? theoretical physics? a world leader? a vocabulary word? I am on the wikipedia page as we speak
Ok let me get this straight: you cruelly remove my primary olfactory apparatus then smugly hold it between your fingers saying “got your nose!” and are now expecting to be forgiven because it was “satire”????
my humor 2016
10 years
there are days where NO ❌️ video games are played and there are days where video games are played for 10 or maybe 14 hours straight
“And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.”
— Marx & Engels - Communist Manifesto 1848
its so funny when people think theres some #conspiracy instead of like. the bourgeoise all live in a society together