" People like to say that in choosing to not vaccinate, they are making the "best choice for their family", and that, after all, their children are the ones at risk, not other people’s children. No, sorry, you’re wrong. Choosing to home school is a choice that is made in the best interest of a family—it impacts nobody but your family. Choosing to eat all organic and locally grown food is a choice that impacts nobody but your family. For that matter, choosing to eat nothing but fast food and frozen meals is a choice that impacts nobody but your family. Choosing to not vaccinate impacts my family and my immunocompromised son. It impacts the teacher who is pregnant and teaching your non-vaccinated child. It impacts the man going through chemo who happened to be behind you in the grocery store when your unvaccinated child sneezed. It impacts the mom next to you at the pick up line at school who is on immunosuppressive drugs for her rheumatoid arthritis and who is bending down to hug her child just as your unvaccinated child coughs. Your "choice" has repercussions for your community."
"When I was at art college in the late Seventies/early Eighties, one of the slogans the feminists used was: “Objectivity is Male Subjectivity.” This brilliantly encapsulates how male power nestles in our very language, exerting influence at the most fundamental level. Men, especially Default Men, have put forward their biased, highly emotional views as somehow “rational”, more considered, more “calm down, dear”. Women and “exotic” minorities are framed as “passionate” or “emotional” as if they, the Default Men, had this unique ability to somehow look round the side of that most interior lens, the lens that is always distorted by our feelings. Default Man somehow had a dispassionate, empirical, objective vision of the world as a birthright, and everyone else was at the mercy of turbulent, uncontrolled feelings. That, of course, explained why the “others” often held views that were at such odds with their supposedly cool, analytic vision of the world."
An 8-year-old African-American boy in Texas is struggling to recover after being shot in the face by a 46-year-old white man, but authorities have not been able to determine a motive.
Dallas police said that Donald Maiden Jr., who had just celebrated his 8th birthday on Sunday, was playing tag outside his apartment complex on Tuesday. According to his grandmother, Maiden ran inside to get some toys and was shot as came back outside.
Witnesses told police that 46-year-old Brian Cloninger had been seen waiving a handgun at people prior to the shooting, The Dallas Morning News reported.
Police reports said that Cloninger was seen standing beside his pickup truck as the boy was bleeding, and a witness asked him if he shot the boy.
“When he ran in I just screamed,” she said. “His mouth was just hanging off and it was just a big hole… I just threw him on the couch and laid him in my arms and put pressure on his mouth with the towel.”
Locklin couldn’t understand why anyone would shoot her child “out of the blue.”
Maiden was in critical but stable condition as of Thursday. He still needed a breathing tube and had a plate in his jaw. He he could wink and nod to communicate, but could not talk. The boy was expected to have more surgeries after swelling from the most-recent surgeries goes down.
Cloninger was charged with injury to a child, and was being held $2.2 million dollar bond.
Take notes “charged with injury to a child” rather than attempted murder.
all these new protests annoy me. he was armed. he shot three times at police officers. he had a bracket on his ankle because of a gun related arrest. yes he was black, but he actually broke the law this time. why are people turning a crime into a race thing?
My thoughts are scattered so this may be all over the place. But I’ll start with one thing.
It IS a race thing.
1. The officer had no reason to stop him. He was pulling off duty security detail. He stopped them because they “looked” like they needed to be stopped. Why else would he stop them when no crime had been called in? Maybe because of the way they look, the color of their skin.
2. There are surveillance photos that show he wasn’t armed. The cops also say that he had a hoody on. I see no hoody, but that’s beside the point, I guess, unless we want to talk about how they can’t get their story straight.
2 1/2: Several eye witnesses are saying that he was unarmed. It was a sandwich, they are saying. Probably the sandwich he bought at the store above. That’s hearsay at the moment but if that’s what they believe, then that adds to the motive of protesting.
3.The cop was driving along the street, saw one of the group sporadically running (I didn’t know it was illegal, but okay) and pulled a U-Turn. When he pulled up on them they all began running. He states it was a Pedestrian Check. WTF. You’re a security guard at this point. You don’t get to do random “Pedestrian Checks.”
This location is 20 minutes outside of Ferguson. Black men are SCARED of the police. The last time a police officer, without probably cause, pulled up on a black man, he killed him. I would have ran too.
4. The St. Louis PD is notorious for LYING. They’ve been caught on tape, paper, on the news, in front of politicians and congressman LYING THEIR ASSES OFF. The only difference between this case and Mike Brown are witnesses. Other than that, they can tell whatever lie they want and get away with it. At the current moment because we are still missing facts, whatever they say is being taken carte blanche, turning the public eye on Vonderrit "bad history" with cops instead of what actually could have happened.
5. He unloaded 17 shots. That’s a full clip.
6. The cop was unharmed in any way.
7. They (the SLMPD) have already changed up their story twice. First they said Vonderrit Myers “jumped out of a bush” to attack the officer. Now they are saying that didn’t happen. Why? Because it ridiculous for someone to be hiding from the cops and then try to surprise attack them.
Again, not saying whether Vonderrit had a gun or not; but I’m trying to paint a picture of the relationship between the cops and the citizens. I can go into detail about what horrendous acts Ferguson PD/SLMPD has done to the citizens (namely black ones).
9. The entire community is upset. They literally had to calm the white citizens down last night because they were THAT angry. This isn’t Ferguson. This is a diverse upper middle class community I believe. When a whole community is upset (black, white, Hispanic) about the death of a black man.. you know there is something is off (hard bullet to bite but its the truth).
10. I’ll play devil’s advocate. Let’s say Vonderrit Myers had a gun and he did fire at the police. Here is excerpt from the official statement:
An officer working department-approved secondary for a security company, wearing a St. Louis Police Officer’s uniform was in the 4100 block of Shaw when he attempted a pedestrian check. The male suspect fled on foot. The officer pursued the suspect. The suspect turned and fired a gun at the officer. Fearing for his safety, the officer returned fire striking the suspect, fatally wounding him.
At an early-morning press conference, St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson offered some more details about the incident.According to local CBS affiliate KMOX, Dotson said Myers’s sweatshirt came off during the struggle, and it was clear to the officer that he had a gun. Myers allegedly ran up a hill and turned, then opened fire.
He was able to shoot three rounds, but his gun jammed. The officer then shot 17 rounds, killing Myers. Dotson did not name Myers but said the victim “was no stranger to law enforcement.”
Even if he did have a gun, per the police officers statement, Vonderrit Myers fired three shots, then his gun jammed. This means a couple of things. 1) In order for the police officer to state that as a fact he had to REALIZE that Vonderrit Myers could not shoot back. It also means that the cop unloaded 17 AFTER THAT. He mentally deduced the gun was jammed and then unloaded SEVENTEEN SHOTS.
THAT IS POLICE BRUTALITY. At that point it is not about saving his life. One to two shots (because per the autopsy most shots were below the waist) that’s protecting your life. That’s being a police officer who has been trained to deal with a suspect. The extra 15 shots, including the one that struck him in the face? What and why would he have done that? What purpose did it serve at that point? Especially considering he was completely unharmed?
One thing you have to remember. The St. Louis PD, Ferguson PD and the likes have a VERY BAD history with the people they are supposed to protect. Very bad. Per documents, they treat the people (and by people I mean black people) LIKE SHIT. That level of distrust just kept getting higher and higher and higher and is NOW only boiling over because they are tired of young black men dying. They have been dealing with this and now, through the murder of Michael Brown do we know about it.
I’ll be honest with you. At this moment, without ALL the facts, I have no idea what really happened that night. I wasn’t there. I’m reading the sparse facts that have been presented to me, the same you are. I’m getting bits and pieces from the people who live in St. Louis and were in the area the night Vonderrit died.
However, I do understand why the people of that town are upset. I understand that this, ontop of John Crawford, Eric Garner, Kajieme Powell, that Mike Brown’s killer is still free. That no justice has been served to any of these men and for the people of this town, who are constantly use to the mistreatment served by their police, EMOTION, righteous ANGER comes first. They feel that their lives have no value to the country that is supposed to protect them.
They are scared. They are angry. People keep dying at the hands of police officers. One in a city that hadn’t had a murder UNTIL the police did it.
So, I know you’re annoyed with the continued protests, but on a scale of one to who really gives a shit, the people of St. Louis don’t care about those who are outside of that perspective, that bubble, who are annoyed. They feel they are at war for their lives.
I’m not giving these factoids to prove anyone innocence or guilt right now. But you wanted a reason as to why they are still protesting. This is just a LITTLE bit of it.
Note: there may be slight errors due to the fact that information is coming out on the hour.
Often, in class conversations, some students will talk over other students and not let them get a word in edgewise. (This happens a lot between male and female students. It’s not always gendered that way but that’s a common dynamic.), eg:
Brenda: I thought the colors were too bright because they…
So that’s where conservatism stands, circa 2014: Consensual sex is evil, but a man’s right to force non-consensual sex on a woman is sacrosanct, no matter how much damage it causes. After all, it mostly just hurts women, right, and they aren’t really people at all.
But really, there’s a common thread between the attacks on reproductive rights and the casual support of men who enjoy forcing sex on the unwilling. I mean, it’s misogyny, duh, but more specifically the thread is a desire to hurt and punish women for enjoying freedom and particularly for enjoying their own sexual freedom. After all, most campus rapes happen either in dating or party situations, something conservatives harp on relentlessly, blaming women for being alone with dates (perhaps even to have—gasp!—sex) or going to parties. There are exceptions, but most campus rapes happen because a woman is considering some kind of consensual sexual encounter with a man and he springs a rape on her instead. The common theme here is dishing out punishment to women who choose to live independently, particularly if they’re open to having consensual sex. Rapists on campus are a kind of vigilante sex police, attacking women who have consensual sex and creating trauma and misery for them. Rape has this in common with abortion bans. In the end, it’s all about making women suffer for daring to think they own their own bodies.
Got me a notebook to brainstorm and organize me thoughts. I wrote down a list of family members and called it ‘characters’. On another page I started a list of people I can remember having some sort of sexual interaction with. Enough to tell a story, anyway.
This was like yesterday or before. Today I thought maybe I should add a section on the characters page for friends I haven’t slept with.
“"Hate is a strong word," they say.
And they don’t want us to have access to strong words. They want us to use weak words. They want us to say “I’m not comfortable with this”. Then they say “It’s important that you expand your comfort zone”.”—realsocialskills (via stimmyabby)
I don't have a problem w/strippers and if u wanna sell ur body to gross men that's ur choice BUT pole dancing isn't stripping, pole takes ATHLETIC SKILL, im not just shakin my ass n picking up two-dollar bills w/my vagina. just because I pole dance 4 fitness and 2 express myself creatively doesn't mean i want ppl to assume i'm a trashy bimbo w/daddy issues.
Wow! You packed so much in here.
First of all, I’m not selling my body to gross old men.
There’s a few misconceptions in that one sentence alone. You may have noticed I’m home in my bathrobe, alone with my dogs, having finished my gyro, answering this. How did I get my body back?! Did I buy it back? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of selling it? Maybe he GAVE it back to me out of charity when he was done using it, is that it?
So —taking this ask at face value—i’m gonna say your feminist praxis needs a bit of a refresher. Women—all women, and tbh all people as little as I care for men—are living beings with agency and calculating capabilities. We calculate our best options and go from there. We are not tissues to be used, regardless of that fervid and foetid radfem rhetoric. They only regard certain women as people anyway.
And then, if you’re talking to me, you know my stance on pole dancing. You know that western appropriation narratives aside, the reason you want pole dance specifically to be your fitness routine and not mallakhamb (which doesn’t welcome women anyway) or aerialism, is that neither have been sexy and appealing background props setting the standards of female desirability for the past twenty years.
You want to look like a stripper. You want that slumming, dangerous, mysterious aura, you want to walk with confidence like I walk in 8” heels, you want to look like men pay you hundreds of dollars because you’re desirable.
You want to feel edgy and desirable.
That’s why you haven’t run off to cirque du soleil, nor are you calling aerialists tramps.
With that cleared up, let’s go back to your first point:
You do have a problem with strippers. Your problem: you want our aura and desirability and not the stigma, not the danger, not the real threat of losing homes/jobs/family/scholarships/children/careers/futures.
You know that the edginess you crave comes at a price, and your way of dealing with this is NOT to combat stripper stigma, your way of dealing with this is to play up respectability politics for all you’re worth, widening the dichotomy between pure you and filthy us, too busy selling our bodies to dirty old men to develop the skills and grace you so admire.
And to a certain degree this makes sense. It will work for you, sort of. There are people who will buy it, mostly other women who have the same investment in maintaining respectability politics.
Men, babe, are never going to believe you, and they are never going to care.
BUT! There’s another option. Instead of crying when someone asks if you’re a stripper after a certain effortfull routine, sobbing like strippers can’t climb a pole through shoulder mounts backward and then do a drop in a straddle split catching themselves an inch above the floor in 8” heels, instead of reassuring yourself that we’re all mushy muscles barely able to stagger around the pole, making your tricks all the more unique and special—
The next time someone asks if you’re a stripper you could say:
No! But isn’t it amazing that they manage to do this in heels?
No, I’m not a stripper, but I’m flattered you think I have that self confidence!
No, I’m not a stripper but I’ve thought about it, but the stigma scares me.
No, I’m not a stripper but their skills and bravery inspire me and my classmates!
No, I’m not a stripper, and it makes me nervous that you would ask that bc sex work is so loaded and sex workers are murdered and discriminated against, so I get defensive about this but I’m trying to fight it and support strippers in ending sex worker stigma, starting with myself.
No, I’m not a stripper and I get tense about that question because of daddy issues stereotypes but isn’t it so fucked up that strippers (and other women) are the butt of jokes about male pattern abuse? 1 in 3 or 4 women is abused in her life time, usually by a family member or an intimate partner. You know someone who is the butt of that joke, stripper or not. And issues are a valid response to abuse across the spectrum, not just for strippers.
No, I’m not a stripper but I love them and I’m jealous they get to wear fancy outfits.
No, I’m not a stripper because they’re an exploited labour class and i enjoy my pole work best without having to give a percent of my income to a man who doesn’t deserve it.
No, I’m not a stripper, and they don’t pick up dollars with their vaginas either because unlike customers (who stick dollars in their mouths) none of us are interested in getting hepatitis.
So these are some potential answers for you! Hope this helps and thanks for indulging me.
Usually discussed in the context of breakups, the myth of closure is the idea that there’s something called “closure” that would really, really help us get over breakups, and that may even be owed us by the person who broke off the relationship. Sometimes it’s helpful to know why things ended, sometimes not, but regardless, nobody owes you that explanation. Sometimes, being an adult means sitting with the uncomfortable feelings and learning to overcome them by yourself, without the help of the person who caused or triggered them (but with, of course, the help of friends).
A similar thing happens in the context of fuckups and apologies. You fuck up, you feel bad, you apologize, and then you (may) think that you need to be absolved by guilt by the person you hurt. But sometimes people aren’t willing to accept your apology, and that’s okay. Sometimes they accept it, but they’re not interested in discussing the issue any longer. That’s okay too. They don’t owe you any closure. You may need to process your feelings about your fuckup without their help.
im a bad person who thinks bad thoughts like ‘ew what is that girl wearing’ and then remember that im supposed to be positive about all things and then think ‘no she can wear what she wants, fuck what other people say damn girl u look fabulous’ and im just a teeny bit hypocritical tbh
I was always taught by my mother, That the first thought that goes through your mind is what you have been conditioned to think. What you think next defines who you are.
If someone doesn’t “seem” disabled to you, maybe it’s because they’ve been forced to develop a huge and complex system of coping mechanisms in order to try and survive in an ableist world. It’s probably that.