followed tags: 148
followed domains: 3
badges given: 33 of 37
member for: 1389 days
I mean, the people on the Pro-polyamory side are going to colour it one way and other people will colour it another way, but the general impression I've got through reading (especially anecdotes from their children) is that it was incredibly ... normal? Like, aside from there being three parents instead of two, it was just like ... a super normal situation to grow up in.
I hope against likelihood that they'll keep the poly relationship as it was - super functional and stable. The kids had different pet names for the two moms, and after Marston died, Elizabeth and Olive continued to live together with Elizabeth financially supporting the family and Olive taking care of the children. They lived together for 64 years.
This often gets downplayed as Elizabeth "accepting" another woman into their marriage, but truthfully the three were (more than would be expected considering the times) pretty equal in their relationship.
My favourite quote from this article
- For the record, Marston and Olive Byrne’s son, Byrne Marston, who is an 83-year-old retired obstetrician, thinks that when Marston talked about the importance of submission, he meant it only metaphorically. “I never saw anything like that in our house,” he told me. “He didn’t tie the ladies up to the bedpost. He’d never have gotten away with it."
well I WAS going to move away from the apple ecosystem into the android one... So much for that.
- Gomes and Thakur declined to say if Google would include advertisements in the feed.
Telling. Please stop tracking my literal every keystroke on the internet, please.
I agree he gets a bad rap. I guess i was looking for an easy metaphor.
This point was a big one for me:
- At this year’s Allied Media Conference, BLM co-founder Alicia Garza gave an explosive speech to a theatre full of brilliant and passionate organizers. She urged us to set aside our distrust and critique of newer activists and accept that they will hurt and disappoint us. Don’t shut them out because their politics are outdated or they don’t wield the same language. If we are interested in building the mass movements needed to destroy mass oppression, our movements must include people not like us, people with whom we will never fully agree, and people with whom we have conflict.
Unfortunately, the MLKs of our generations will never exist withour their counterpart Malcolm Xs. We have to be vigilant to make sure our Malcolm Xs don't become our Robespierres.
As referenced in the article, this reminds me strongly of Marxism, or more specifically, one the steps Marx states is along the road to communism. But instead of a violent social revolution like many expect, it's simply the people of Detroit turning their back on a system that has failed them, and instead working more communally, with a common good in mind. from the wiki:
- The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism – a socioeconomic system based on social ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. As the productive forces and technology continued to advance, Marx hypothesized that socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development, which would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
I'm seeing some serious shades of that in this situation, but it's also different, which interests me. I mean, at some level it's still necessary for someone to interact with the system, and most of them do on some small level. But that interaction is reduced. Some people seem to want to "get back" to the system, like the restaurant guy who says he wants to get a license when he can afford it, but other like the people who have set up the " Detroiters Helping Each Other" storefront seem to be in this for the long haul.
Super interesting. thanks for the share.
Ok. there's a lot to unpack here.
Let me start by saying that I myself am a trans woman, so this will colour my perspective.
Let's start with Drag. I personally have conflicting feeling about drag, but at the end of the day I realize that they're generally about me and not about the people performing, so i leave them to have fun.
Drag is performative, inherently. A person dresses up as a hypermasculine or hyperfeminine character for the purpose of entertainment. While in costume, they are generally treated as the gender that their "character" is, though this isn't an across the board truth. The point being from all this is that when a man dons women's clothing for the purpose of drag performance, they are being performatively feminine without having to deal with all of the real world issues of being a woman. This is why i made the comparison that I did - when people co-opt race and culture, they are able to live in that skin and then walk away from it once they are done, or once they get bored, or once they get hurt. People of colour don't get that luxury, and that's what people need to recognize and respect, and it's what they're not respecting when they use another person's culture as a costume.
Moving on to another kettle of fish altogether.
- The thing is though that myself and a trans woman do not have the same life experience. I do not envy their life experience but we can't deny they are different.
- So who is the woman's march for ? Is it wrong to discuss women's issues in the context of women who were born that way ?
You're right. you and I have vastly different life experiences. I didn't have to go through puberty in high school as a woman. I'm in the process of what you could call a second puberty now, but it's pretty different, and it's definitely not in high school.
So yes, we have different experiences. But there are also multitudes of other women who for one reason or another are unable to have children, and there are trans men who are in the process of having children, while presenting as a man. There are women who are infertile, there are women who can't have vaginal intercourse without pain, there are intersex women who don't have a fully formed vagina, and intersex women who have unclear genitalia, or even penises naturally.
What you have to recognize is that when you discuss "women's issues in the context of women who were born that way", you are excluding all of those people. All of those women are women who were born that way (and for the record, i didn't "become a woman" either. I was born the way I am, and I'm a woman). You are saying "my feminism is for people who look like me and whose bodies act exactly like mine."
That's a pretty shit way to think, in my view, but my feminism is intersectional and includes all of those people. When I talk about reproductive health it includes ALL of those people, because otherwise we're only having half of a conversation or less. There is no unified experience of being a woman.
- t's not fair to assume somebody is always mocking you.
that's true. But there are many times when people do something offensive and don't even realize that it's offensive. It doesn't have to be intentional. The problem with this is that often, as a defense mechanism, people double down on being offensive by then repeating the action KNOWING that the other person finds it offensive. Indeed, that very defense mechanism is what 90% of this conversation is about, the other 10% generally boiling down to " Well if I can't make fun of X, who can I make fun of?"
- Dressing in a kimono isn't mocking somebody, it's just enjoying a piece of clothing
Again, i feel like I should clarify, it's not always about "mocking" people. Sometimes it's a fetishization of culture. Kimonos are pretty special and specific garb. remember, we're not talking about this kind of kimono:
Go ahead and wear that thing, no one cares. We're talking about this kind of kimono.
It's heavy, It's impractical, it takes a very long time to put on (and you need help to tie it properly) and If you're not going to a tea ceremony or a wedding, you'd better have a pretty good reason to wear one or you're a lunatic (or a masochist). It's the equivalent of walking around in a wedding dress (including its current cultural use).
Like I said in my original post, if you really want to wear one of these, and you get one made for you by someone in Japan who you paid a fair wage, then go for it. I would suggest you question why exactly you want to do that, though. Is it because you love the garment, or is there a fetishization of that culture going on? Why not just buy a dress that has a Japanese influence, or has some kimono detailings? It'd be more practical, for one. If it "must" be a kimono, then I'd suggest there's something more about what the garment represents than the garment itself that you are looking for, meaning that there's a level of cultural fetishization going on.
I'd recommend looking at my reply to WanderingEng for an answer on Cowboys, and you can expand that to civil was garb as well. I would say that someone from the North wearing a Southern Confederacy uniform would definitely get some flack at a party unless you were in a reenactment group or some such, and for similar reasons to these other costumes- It's not generally coming from a place of celebration, it's coming from a place of ... well, mockery feels like a strong word but it's in the right direction.
For the Mongolian Sushi example, I think I made it pretty clear the person wasn't asking if they knew how to make sushi because they know the Mongolian person is a good cook. they're doing it because of the colour of their skin. If I wasn't clear then, I'm certainly doing my best to be so now.
- If gender can be fluid why can't race or culture?
If you take on a race, are you willing to take on the baggage of that race, too? If you decide to be black, are you going to advocate for all of the issues that face black people and people of darker skin where you live? Are you willing to be seen as lesser and effeminate because you're an asian man? (again, see my comment to wanderingEng for a source on this stereotype)
The difference here is that you're like a race "drag" character. Like a drag queen, who puts on their femininity for one night, or for a performance, but can scrub it all away and still be treated as a man, you would be washing off your black-ness, or your asian-ness to be treated as a white person again. Regular asian people or black people can't scrub off their skin colour and be treated with more respect, as you would be doing.
Well, there was definitely a lot of argument around Toronto Pride with police people's uniform's being a "Part of their identity", so maybe ask those people. I don't think a uniform like a hard hat is part of an identity, and don't see it as a problem. Others obviously disagree.
The difference here, though, is respect. Cowboys, to take your have respect in north american culture. When you dress up as one, you're identifying with that part of your culture and you're saying "this is a strong, brave person that I want to emulate."
Generally, (and of course we can only ever talk in generalities about this stuff because specificity means going down into a weird case by case basis of every costume ever worn), there is a societal history in america as seeing asian people, and asian men in particular as weak and effeminate ( For more information on this, have a listen to this episode of the One From the Vault podcast which talks about crossdressing laws and how they were used to deal with asian immigration in the US). They do not have a history in the US of respect and masculinity (even the respect for Samurai is a recent thing), and usually when one makes a costume out of them, it's to get a laugh. That's the difference.
- Here's the line I see: a non-Japanese person wearing a kimono to a costume party isn't worth criticism. But someone wearing a kimono to a costume party and playing up Asian stereotypes and using their fingers to make their eyes look slanty is worthy of criticism.
I think the broader point is that we don't get to decide what other people in other cultures find offensive. You can argue all day about having the "right to offend", but if you piss people off, Don't be mad if they treat you like shit or call you out for doing something they don't like, right?
Well, first nations people have varying opinions about frybread, actually. It's a Colonized product, meaning it didn't exist until colonizing Europeans showed up and flour was being used in trade. First nations people throughout north america generally used corn, or other flours to make other flatbreads (such as tortillas), however, so there's varying views, as I said. Some first nations people decide to own it as a product, and some see it as an example of colonization and the broader problem of low food choice on reservations.
If you're interested in more info about the First nations food situation, this is a decent vid:
As for the Kimonos, I think it's easiest to think about it in levels.
Wearing a heavily japanses influenced dress? 100% a-ok.
Wearing a Kimono made for you by a Japanese maker that you paid a fair wage for? Go for it, though you might ask yourself why you want a kimono specifically so bad and why another dress would not do.
Wearing an antique kimono with someone's history all over it (symbols, colours, etc)? pretty sketch, especially because you're wearing a delicate antique.
Wearing a costume kimono? No Bueno. someone else's historical daily culture, and to an extent their current culture isn't a costume.
Wearing a costume kimono and full "geisha" makeup? #realbad
Being a eurpoean person playing the role of an asian person in a movie? Full retard.
As much as I got a bit cheeky near the end, does that make sense? Like, having respect for a culture, and loving the designs of a culture, and being influenced by them are all great. Fetishizing a culture, or using that cultures symbols as a costume are not okay.
Are there people who go overboard with this? Sure, but there are also people who ask Mongolian people if they know how to make sushi because they "all look the same". The attitudes are equally bad, but at least the first one usually comes from being sick and tired of dealing with idiots, and not from being an idiot themselves.
well, considering your misrepresentation of the issue in question, I figured you might not have been. Excuse my error.