#you shouldn’t have non black people feeling comfortable enough to include themselves in our movements | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

canchewread · 4 years

Photo

Editor's note: this journal is original content (written by myself, of course) and has not appeared elsewhere online before today. I should also note that because this is both an opinion piece and an informal journal, my level of commitment to providing citations for the disingenuous wasn't particularly high; if you're looking for formally documented evidence that we're currently in the middle of a fascist takeover, I encourage you to check out my academic writing about the subject on ninaillingworth.com instead.

Journal 09/09/2020: Looking the Beast in the Eye

When I originally sat down to pen this journal, my intention was to call it something along the lines of “advice to a young leftist” which is probably in no small part, the reason why it's taken me three days to write this piece. This is because unfortunately I do not have very much good advice for a young leftist today in two-thousand and twenty, or at least much advice that isn't going to sound rather a lot like “quit before what you believe destroys your entire life.”

As I've written (extensively) elsewhere, we're in the middle of a fascist takeover that is more or less succeeding across the entire Pig Empire, and what passes for the liberal (read: capitalist) establishment in our respective nations seem quite content to try and appease the beast by feeding them the entire left and any marginalized group “uppity” enough to demand justice, equality or representation. There is not a lot of upside to being an open leftist right now and understanding what I know about both the history of fascism and the history of reactionary crackdowns in America, it's awful hard for me in good conscience to advise any young person to willingly subject themselves to the tender mercies of an uncaring state and its fascist cutout vigilante groups.

Let's talk a little bit about what that history, including very recent history, can tell us and why what it tells us isn't very good for the American left. Here in particular, we as both a class in American society and a people that believe in a more equal, compassionate and humane way of life, stand at the intersection of state power, class oppression and the homicidal revenge fantasies of a fascist political order that has seized power throughout much of the United States. The fact that this is not understood by our milquetoast Dem Soc allies and the bougie “progressive left” is completely irrelevant; as any Ferguson activist (who is still breathing) can tell you COINTELPRO never ended, performative liberal anti-racism stops well short of opposing police repression, and genteel society will respond to violent reprisals against activists by the reactionary right with either dead silence or some mild clucks of disapproval at best.

Are the liberals aware that when the increasingly fascist American right says “the left” they mean liberals and suburbanite Democrats too? On some level I'm sure they are, but clearly the threat of increased taxation and social programs for the poor terrifies them far more than the possibility fascism will progress to the point that they're next in front of the firing squad – I've been told the liberals of Weimar Germany felt much the same way during Hitler's rise; which merely demonstrates that the liberal capacity for coddling fascism if it's profitable knows few limits. Furthermore the nauseating truth is that many of your misguided and misinformed liberal allies in the working class simply don't understand that the fascist right always seeks to eliminate the militant left first simply because those are the people who're going to fight back when you start loading Muslims, Latinos and lanyard Democrats onto cattle cars.

This historical process of fascism of course intertwines with the American establishment's history of ruthlessly repressing, criminalizing and even murdering the left. As I detailed extensively in a prior essay called “The Inversion Perversion” the state's war against Americans who want a more equal society (in any number of ways) predates the rise of Nazi Germany, the American Civil War and as those who've studied colonial America might argue, even the foundation of the country. Between the mass deportations of anarchists, suppression of left wing literature through the mail, two Red Scares, anticommunism, Hoover's COINTELPRO war against the civil rights movement, the black power movement and the American student left, or all the way up to the Obama Department of Justice's ruthless oppression of the Occupy, Ferguson and North Dakota Pipeline protests, I could easily spend this entire essay demonstrating that when it comes to persecuting, destroying and yes even murdering the left, there is a long and storied history of bipartisan consensus in America – I see no reason or evidence to suggest that has changed much in our modern times.

In other words history, even recent American history, says that this story ends in a jail cell or a shallow grave for some of the folks reading this journal right now and I don't know how to sugarcoat that for anyone, let alone a young person with their whole life (such as it is) ahead of them. The plain, god-awful truth is that the American right wants you dead, and the center-right American liberal establishment simply doesn't care, just as it has never cared, because they also want the left destroyed and fear sharing their ill-gotten wealth more than they fear fascism. Furthermore, this same elite “liberal” establishment is actively engaged in splitting the component parts of the current American uprising up into acceptable and non-acceptable targets; that's why Joe Biden keeps yammering about police funding, anarchists and “looters.” Democrats in particular are doing this even as fascist militia vigilantes are starting to execute antifascists and protesters in the street, might I add.

Did I mention that it's a really bad time to be an open leftist, or even just someone who passionately feels cracker murderpigs shouldn't get away with murder because some fascist gave them a badge? And yet of course therein also lies the rub; just as there is danger in resisting the imposition of a fascist order there is also danger in refusing to resist.

Turning once again to history, we know that the fascist creep isn't going to stop itself until well after it has killed millions of people and destroyed everything about our lives that contains any meaning whatsoever. The reactionary backlash will not stop with silencing, arresting and/or killing teenage anarchists, African Americans protesting against racialized police violence or Portland soccer moms who've had enough fascism for a lifetime. The fascist mindset and method of societal control dictates that there must always been more enemies both within and outside of the state who represent both an abomination that should be destroyed and a threat to everything good and pure in the national character. Right now, the waking dragon of American fascism has cast a laser-like focus on those brave few Americans who are willing to physically resist the transformation of the country from a corrupt Oligarchy to an overt fascist police-state with rigged elections. Once that enemy is crushed and defeated, the beast will turn its eye to others – unions, teachers, and yes even Democratic Party politicians who've always been friendly to the fascist capitalist billionaires running much of the reactionary American right today.

Whether you choose to fight, hide or run, it has become crystal-clear clear to me that we are all headed towards dark days in the very near future and the only variable left to be determined is which segments of the audience reading this will be thrown onto the pyre first. What we know today as “Western Society” is blindly crashing through the kinds of barriers people who desire peace, comfort and security simply don't breech without expecting violence, bloodshed and a whole lot of rain.

Perhaps in light of all this my advice to the young leftist should be to harden oneself for the torrential downpour of violence, repression and yes death that lies ahead, regardless of whether or not you choose to resist the fascist creep. Perhaps the best thing I can offer a young person staring directly into the eye of this beast is the assurance that it is not their fault, that nobody in history has ever asked to be born into the war against fascism and that ultimately the fascists cannot win because fascism is a death cult that will eventually eat itself and has done so every single time before this one. Perhaps all I really have to share with you is the hope that in the darkness and despair that lies ahead of us you will remember my words and know that no matter how much they repress, terrorize and torture us, fantasy cannot be reality, slavery cannot be freedom and life cannot be death.

And that I think is the handle and the comfort I can offer those of you reading this who’re young enough to have a future beyond the fascist order; I have no optimism to sell you but I can make one promise that may help carry you through the bowels of the hell we are all descending into after all. It might not amount to much yet, but I promise you there will always only be four lights; no matter how many of us they murder to try and “prove” otherwise. Do not give these maggots the satisfaction of seeing your fear; know that at least some of you reading this will eventually dance on their graves and take whatever comfort you are able to, in that inevitability.

Never forget - one way, or another, the future is left.

nina illingworth

Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus. Please help me fight corporate censorship by sharing my articles with your friends online!

You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog

Updates available on Twitter, Mastodon and Facebook. Podcast at “No Fugazi” on Soundcloud.

Inquiries and requests to speak to the manager @ASNinaWrites

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

“It’s ok Willie; swing heil, swing heil…”

#Fascism #USA #Opinion #Journal #nina illingworth #resisting fascism #antifascism #advice to a young leftist #looking the beast in the eye

19 notes · View notes

klutzymaiden123 · 3 years

Text

Things I would love to see more of in fiction (and hopefully, when I’m a writer, will be implementing myself)

Female Friendships

Enough said. If you follow this blog, y’all already know.

Bisexual men

I feel like whenever I see bisexuals portrayed in movies or TV shows, it’s always women, and, unless they’re directed by people in the LGBTQ+ community, it’s almost always so they can fetishise bi women. It would be nice to see some beautiful bisexual men.

Less romances

I love romance as much as the next person, but honestly, not every story needs to have a romantic subplot. I’m fine with it being about platonic relationships.

LGBTQ+ hanging out together

This comes from Hollywood’s need to look diverse so they’ll include someone from the LGBTQ+ community, but only one person, because token representation has gotten them enough praise for the past twenty years.

Feminine/Flamboyant Straight Men

Toxic masculinity is a root for a lot of our problems, which is very heavily pushed in our media. Showing men who identify as straight who are comfortable wearing dresses, painting their nails, or doing things that are considered traditionally “feminine”, I feel, would be a big step in curing this way of thinking.

Trans and Non-binary people

This might be totally a me thing, but I feel like I rarely see trans or non-binary people represented in media. And if they are, it’s definitely not in the mainstream, or it’s in a more slice-of-life plot that revolves around their identies, rather a more action-y story where the focus isn’t on how they choose to identify.

I would love to see (and hell, even write, if I can educate myself enough) more superhero, or chosen one, or just pretty standard adventure plots with trans or non-binary people in the main casts.

Also, while I’m at it--

Trans and/or Non-Binary romances.

Straight up, I’ve never seen this. Except maybe in She-Ra. Other then that, I’ve never seen it.

Girl Gangs.

No, this is not the same as the first one. Shut up. 🙄✋

Detailed Fight scenes.

Or better choegraphed fight scenes.

This one’s specifically in reference to books. I’ve recently picked up books again (because I want to better educate myself and also just understand writing from professional authors), and though everything else tends to have a lot of focus, fights are really . . . underwhelming.

Like, it’ll describe general swipes or ducks, but other then that, it doesn’t go into detail. And from my years of reading tumblr writing blogs, I really thought there would be more detail into something so physically straining. Especially if it’s told in first person (which, given my preference, it always is).

You shouldn’t just be explaining the movements, but the impact it has on their bodies. It should be quick paced. I want the descriptions to be vivid; make me think of the gross sweat curling at the back of their necks. Make me think of the blistering in their chest, that makes it so hard to breathe, and any time you try, it almost feels like you’re bleeding. Gimme the grim that gets stuck underneath their fingernails as they’re thrown to the ground. Give me the hacking, the gurgling, as blood dries and cakes along their face, making it even more difficult to breathe.

I want details. If it’s first person, we should be seeing, feeling, thinking everything they are.

Also, the fights are just so badly cheographed. I know that film is a visual medium, so obviously it has a much higher advantage, but fight scenes can absolutely still be pleasent in book form. The problem is, I seem to only see that in works that are indepedently published online, not in professionally published novels.

(Which makes me think that this might be the publishing houses censoring authors. Or possibly a tighter time restraint.)

Asexuals.

Seriously. They’re always, always, always erased, especially in book to film adaptions. Cause y’all wanna add in yo nasty spice scenes or romantic drama subplots.

Again, we don’t need romance to make something interesting. And ace people deserve to see themselves as heroes or main characters.

Racial Representation.

Honestly, should be higher, but this is a stream of consciousness post.

Relatively simple--I’m black. I didn’t get to see dark skinned girls in media growing up, and given my family is majority white, it didn’t do well for my mental health growing up.

I would like to see more races being represented. Not just black or dark skinned people. Everyone. Asians, Hispanic people, the Aborignal peoples, Native Americans--there’s a lot of us. It would be nice if we could be represented as more then our sterotypes or token minorities made to fit your ‘I’m so diverse’ agenda.

Hooookay, and that’s all I can think of right now. Probably will think of more later, because honestly, our scope of representation is very limited. But yeah, so far, that’s my list. Reblog with your own if you want, or just scroll. I’m gonna go eat pizza now

✌️

#writing #author #representation #lgbtqiia+#diversity #racial representation #blacklivesmatter #blackgirlmagic #trans rights #ace rights #writer #books

5 notes · View notes

schraubd · 6 years

Text

The Problem of "Centering" and the Jews

Note: I wrote this piece quite a few months ago, shopping around to the usual Jewish media outlets. None were interested, and I ended up letting it slide. But it popped back into my mind -- this Sophie Ellman-Golan article helped -- and so I decided to post it here. While I have updated it, some of the references are a bit dated (at least on an internet time scale). Nonetheless, I continue to think a critical look at how the idea of "centering" interacts with and can easily instantiate antisemitic tropes is deeply important. * * * In the early 2000s, Rosa Pegueros, a Salvadoran Jew, was a member of the listserv for contributors to the book This Bridge We Call Home, sequel to the tremendously influential volume This Bridge Called My Back. Another member of the listserv had written to the group with "an almost apologetic post mentioning that she is Jewish, implying that some of the members might not be comfortable with her presence for that reason." She had guessed she was the only Jewish contributor to the volume, so Pegueros wrote back, identifying herself as a Jew as a well and recounting a recent experience she perceived as antisemitic. Almost immediately, Peugeros wrote, another third contributor jumped into the conversation. "I can no longer sit back," she wrote, "and watch this list turn into another place where Jewishness is reduced to a site of oppression and victimization, rather than a complex site of both oppression and privilege—particularly in relationship to POC." Pegueros was stunned. At the time of this reply, there had been a grand total of two messages referencing Jewishness on the entire listserv. And yet, it seemed, that was too much -- it symbolized yet "another place" where discourse about oppression had become "a forum for Jews." This story has always stuck with me. And I thought of it when reading Jews for Racial and Economic Justice's guidebook to understanding antisemitism from a left-wing perspective. Among their final pieces of advice for Jews participating in anti-racism groups was to make antisemitism and Jewish issues "central, but not centered". It's good advice. Jewish issues are an important and indispensable part of anti-racist work. That said, we are not alone, and it is important to recognize that in many circumstances our discrete problems ought not to take center stage. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard. It just means they should not be given disproportionate attention such that they prevent other important questions and campaigns from proceeding. Ideally, "central, but not centered" in the anti-racism community means that Jewish issues should neither overwhelm the conversation nor be shunted aside and ignored outright.

Yet it also overlooks an important caveat. Too often, any discussion of Jewish issues is enough to be considered "centering" it. There is virtually no gap between spaces where Jews are silenced and spaces where Jews are accused of "centering". And so the reasonable request not to "center" Jewish issues easily can, and often does, become yet another tool enforcing Jewish silence. Pegueros' account is one striking example. I'll give another: several years ago, I was invited to a Jewish-run feminist blog to host a series of posts on antisemitism. Midway through the series, the blog's editors were challenged on the grounds that it was taking oxygen away from more pressing matters of racism. At the time, the blog had more posts on "racism" than "antisemitism" by an 8:1 margin (and, in my experience, that is uncommonly attentive to antisemitism on a feminist site -- Feministing, for example, has a grand total of two posts with the "anti-Semitism" tag in its entire history). No matter: the fact that Jewish feminists on a Jewish blog were discussing Jewish issues at all was viewed as excessive and self-centered.

Or consider Raphael Magarik's reply to Yishai Schwartz's essay contending that Cornel West has "a Jewish problem".

Schwartz's column takes issue with West's decision to situate his critique of fellow Black intellectual Ta-Nehisi Coates by reference to "the neoliberal establishment that rewards silences on issues such as Wall Street greed or Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and people." Magarik's reply accuses Schwartz of making the West/Coates dispute fundamentally "about the Jews", exhibiting the "the moral narcissism in thinking that everything is about you, in reading arguments between Black intellectuals about the future of the American left and asking: How can I make this about the Jews?" Now, Magarik is surely correct that the Jewish angle of West's critique of Coates is a rather small element that should not become the "center of attention" and thereby obscure "the focus [on] Black struggles for liberation." But there is something quite baffling about his suggestion that a single column that was a drop in the bucket of commentary produced in the wake of the West/Coates exchange could suffice to make it the "center of attention". If Magarik believes Schwartz overreacted to some stray mentions of Jewish issues in an otherwise intramural African-American dispute, surely Magarik equally brought a howitzer to a knife fight by claiming that one article in Ha'aretz single-handedly recentered the conversation about the West/Coates feud onto the Jews.

What's going on here? How is it that the "centering" label -- certainly a valid concern in concept -- seems to routinely and pervasively attach itself to Jews at even the slightest intervention in policy debates?

The answer, as you might have guessed, relates to antisemitism.

As a social phenomenon, antisemitism is very frequently the trafficking in tropes about Jewish hyperpower, the sense that we either have or are on the cusp of taking over anything and everything. Frantz Fanon described antisemitism as follows: "Jews are feared because of their potential to appropriate. ‘They’ are everywhere. The banks, the stock exchanges, and the government are infested with them. They control everything. Soon the country will belong to them.” If we have an abstract understanding of Jews as omnipotent and omnipresent, no wonder that specific instances of Jewish social participation -- no matter how narrow the contribution might be -- are understood as a complete and total colonization of the space. What are the Jews, other than those who are already "everywhere"?

Sadly, the JFREJ pamphlet does not address this issue at all. When "central" crosses into "centering" will often be a matter of judgment, but while the JFREJ has much to say about Jews making "demands for attention" or paying heed to "how much oxygen they can suck out of the room", it does not grapple with how the structure of antisemitism mentalities often renders simply being Jewish (without a concurrent vow of monastic silence) enough to trigger these complaints. It doesn't seem to realize how this entire line of discourse itself can be and often is deeply interlaced with antisemitism. JFREJ's omission is particularly unfortunate since Jews have begun to internalize this sensibility. It's not that Jewish issues should predominate, or always be at the center of every conversation. It's the nagging sense that any discussion of Jewish issues -- no matter how it is prefaced, cabined, or hedged -- is an act of "centering", of taking over, of making it "about us." When the baseline of what counts as "centering" is so low, I know from personal experience that even the simplest asks for inclusion are agonizing. As early as 1982, the radical lesbian feminist Irene Klepfisz identified this propensity as a core part of both internalized and externalized antisemitism. She instructed activists -- Jewish and non-Jewish alike -- to ask themselves a series of questions, including whether they feel that dealing with antisemitism "drain[s] the movement of precious energy", whether they believe antisemitism "has been discussed too much already," and whether Jews "draw too much attention to themselves." Contemporary activists, including many Jews, could do worse than asking Klepfisz's questions. For example, when Jews and non-Jews in the queer community rallied against the effort by some activists to expel Jewish and Israeli LGBTQ organizations from LGBT conference "Creating Change", Mordechai Levovitz fretted that they had "promoted the much more nefarious anti-Semitic trope that Jews wield disproportionate power to get what we want." Levovitz didn't support the expulsion campaign. Still, he fretted that even the most basic demand of inclusion -- don't kick queer Jews out of the room -- was potentially flexing too much Jewish muscle. In this way, the distinction between "central" and "centering" collapses -- indeed, even the most tertiary questions are "centering" if Jews are the ones asking them. This is bad enough in a world where, we are told, oppressions are inextricably connected (you can tell whose perspective is and isn't valued in these communities based on whose attempts to speak are taken to be remedying an oversight and whose are viewed as self-centered derailing). But it verges on Kafka-esque when persons demand Jews "show up" and then get mad that they have a voice in the room; or proactively decide to put Jewish issues on their agenda and yet still demand Jews keep silent about them. Magarik says, for example, that Jews "were not the story" when the Movement for Black Lives included in its platform an accusation that Israel was creating genocide; we shouldn't have made it "about us". He's right, in the sense that this language should not have caused Jews to withdraw from the fight against police violence against communities of color. He's wrong in suggesting that Jews therefore needed to stop "wringing our hands" about how issues that cut deep to the core of our existence as a people were treated in the document. Jews didn't demand that the Movement for Black Lives talk about Jews, but once they elected to do so Jews were not obliged to choose between the right's silence of shunning and the left's silence of acquiescence. To say that Jews ought not "center" ourselves is not to say that there is no place for critical commentary at all. We are legitimate contributors to the discourse over our own lives. I'm not particularly interested in the substantive debate regarding whether Cornel West has a "Jewish problem" -- though Magarik's defense of West (that he "has a good reason for focusing on Palestine" because it "demarcates the difference between liberalism and radicalism") seems like it is worthy of some remark (of all the differences between liberals and "radicals", this is the issue that is the line of demarcation? And that doesn't exhibit some sign of centrality that Jews might have valid grounds to comment on, not the least of which could be wondering how it is a small country half a globe away came to occupy such pride of place?). The larger issue is the metadebate about whether it's valid to even ask the question; or more accurately, whether it is possible -- in any context, with any amount of disclaimers about relative prioritization -- to ask the question without it being read as "centering". The cleverest part of the whole play, after all, is that the very act of challenging this deliberative structure whereby any and all Jewish contributions suffice to center is that the challenge itself easily can become proof of our centrality.

But clever as it is, it can't and shouldn't be a satisfactory retort. There needs to be a lot more introspection about whether and how supposed allies of the Jews are willing to acknowledge the possibility that their instincts about when Jews are "centered" and when we're silenced are out-of-whack, without it becoming yet another basis of resentment for how we're making it all about us. And if we can't do that, then there is an antisemitism problem that really does need to be addressed. When discussing their struggles, members of other marginalized communities need not talk about Jews all the time, or most of the time, or even all that frequently. But what cannot stand is a claimed right to talk about Jews without having to talk with Jews. The idea that even the exploration of potential bias or prejudice lurking within our political movements represents a deliberative party foul is flatly incompatible with everything the left claims to believe about how to talk about matters of oppression. West decided to bring up the Jewish state in his Jeremiad against Coates. It was not a central part of his argument, and so it should not be a central part of the ensuing public discussion. But having put it on the table, it cannot be the case that Jews are forbidden entirely from offering critical commentary. One might say that a column or two in a few Jewish-oriented newspapers, lying at the tertiary edges of the overall debate, is precisely the right amount of attention that should have been given. If that's viewed as too much, then maybe the right question isn't about whether Jews are "centering" the discussion, but rather whether our presence really is a "central" part of anti-racism movements at all.

Drawing the line between "central" and "centering" is difficult, and requires work. There are situations where Jews demand too much attention, and there are times we are too self-effacing. But surely it takes more than a single solitary column to move from the latter to the former. More broadly, we're not going to get an accurate picture of how to mediate between "central" and "centering" unless we're willing to discuss how ingrained patterns of antisemitism condition our evaluations of Jewish political participation across the board.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2MjQd84

#anti-semitism #Jews #leftists

303 notes · View notes

jessicakehoe · 4 years

Text

The Underplayed Documentary Shines a Light on Gender Inequality in Electronic Music

After highlighting the issue of “diversity within the music space” in the short film Discwoman several years ago, director Stacey Lee has returned with a documentary that focuses on the routine harassment and lack of equality that women and female-identifying creatives in the world of electronic music have faced for decades. “This isn’t a new phenomenon,” says Lee when asked about the sexism, undervaluing and under-representation that’s explored Underplayed, a new documentary which was produced by Bud Light and premieres at this year’s Toronto International Film Festival on September 19. “Women have been central and instrumental to the whole birth of this industry since the beginning.”

Stacey Lee. Photograph courtesy of Underplayed

Lee’s film offers a voice to a wealth of musical talents ranging from Australian DJ, producer and singer Alison Wonderland and twin sister act Nervo to Los Angeles-based DJ and producer Tokimonsta, Niagara Falls’s Rezz and Grammy winner Suzanne Ciani. It also draws attention to trailblazers like musician and composer Delia Derbyshire.

Lee says that she was shocked at what she uncovered while working on Underplayed, particularly given this wasn’t her first production on the topic. “It was like nothing had evolved,” she says of the four years since her first project hit the screens. “If anything, some of the statistics were worse. It made me realize the urgency surrounding it.” At the core of the film is the notion that for women to gain equal footing with their male counterparts, a revolution — with all voices involved — must happen.

“It’s exceptionally complicated because you don’t want to distract from the art and the craft of what you’re doing by defining yourself as a woman,” says Lee about her documentary subjects. “At the same time, because there’s such inequity in the space, they also have a responsibility to speak up until things are right…. It’s a male responsibility, too. Women can’t be the only ones fighting for this. It’s the same as the Black Lives Matter movement. It’s shouting into an echo chamber if women are the only ones talking about this.”

FASHION spoke to four electronic acts who are part of the documentary about the trials they’ve faced, how self-expression brings them joy and what keeps them playing on.

TOKIMONSTA

courtesy of tokimonsta

“I think ingenuity is such a challenge and a gift,” says L.A.-based multi-hyphenate Jennifer Lee, who produces music and DJs under the name Tokimonsta. “It’s a quality in music that I strive for, and it keeps me on my toes.”

Lee, who grew up in a traditional immigrant household and learned how to play piano in her youth, says it wasn’t until she left for college that she could dabble in musical creation outside the works of the classical greats (all men) she had been exposed to and expected to learn.

“Growing up, I felt as if I had a lot of creative ideas, but if I ever strayed from Mozart or whatever I was playing, my family would be like, ‘What are you doing? Just stick to what you’re meant to do,’” she recalls. “I never allowed myself the opportunity to think that being creative in a different way was possible or OK. Once I decided to leave for college, it didn’t really matter what my parents thought anymore. I was on my own.”

During her first year of post-secondary studies, Lee downloaded the music production program FruityLoops (now called FL Studio) and developed the technical skills and prowess to craft the hypnotic tracks she has become known for; she points to the genres of drum & bass and West Coast rap and the work of Missy Elliott as being pivotal influences on her style. In 2015, after releasing two albums, Lee was diagnosed with Moyamoya disease, which affects arteries in the brain; she lost a host of cognitive functions and had to learn how to make music all over again.

Despite Lee’s evolution as a musical entrepreneur — she launched the record label Yung Art several years ago — and the fact that she’s self-taught, part of the sexist behaviour she has witnessed through her more than a decade-long career centres around her abilities as a creator. “There have been rumours that my boyfriend was making all my beats and he taught me everything I know,” she says. “Those rumours still exist because people don’t want to think I did it on my own. The discouraging part is that I’ve become so wrapped up in this idea that people don’t give me ownership of my music that it creates a blockage, and I feel very reluctant to work with other people. It has created some long-lasting trauma for me. But I’m growing and exiting from that, and I need to think about the art more than my ego, essentially.”

In addition to Lee learning to release her fears about collaboration, she says that familial acceptance with regard to her career has also grown; her mother now gleefully watches out for Tokimonsta mentions in the newspaper. And her mother — who was a fashion designer in the 1960s — has influenced her in terms of the style choices she makes. “She’s had a profound impact on my style,” says Lee. “She’s all about classic looks—the idea that if you have a certain style of jacket, you’ll have it for the rest of your life. I’ve always enjoyed her perspective on fashion in that way.”

TYGAPAW

courtesy of tygapaw

“I didn’t think of DJing as something I could pursue. If you don’t see yourself represented in a position, you don’t think it can be obtained.” Dion McKenzie, who goes by the moniker Tygapaw, grew up in Jamaica, and though she was exposed to music by Whitney Houston and Tina Turner growing up, the male-dominated dancehall and reggae scenes that permeated the culture left little space for women to consider themselves part of that world in the creative sense.

After moving to New York to study graphic design at Parsons School of Design, McKenzie felt emboldened to pursue the passion that had previously been denied. “I wanted to dive into learning how to play an instrument, but I wasn’t necessarily encouraged or supported when I was younger,” she recalls, noting that when she was a teen, her most potent musical memories came from hearing alternative music by bands like Nirvana and No Doubt. “I had a deep interest in the sound of an amplified guitar running through distortion,” she says.

McKenzie leaned into learning the guitar, and that eventually led to an interest in DJing. “It started when I was in a band, and my bandmate was a DJ as well,” she says. “She was fierce, and she really encouraged me. She said: ‘If you want to DJ, you should just do it. you shouldn’t put a barrier in front of yourself.’”

Since those early days, Tygapaw has become an integral part of New York’s underground music scene and beyond, although quarantine has forced her to focus more on the creation of her first full-length album than globe-trotting. “I’m enjoying the break because sometimes it can be overwhelming when you’re touring a lot and constantly in motion,” she says.

It’s hard to imagine McKenzie revelling in stillness when her music has such a propulsive quality, mixing nuances of island rhythms with driving electronic elements. the range of influences reflected in her tracks can also be seen in how she approaches dressing. “Personal style for me is all about expression and where I’m at in terms of my comfort in denouncing what society deems as conventional,” she says. “expressing myself, especially when it comes to my gender—or non-gender. There’s an evolution that’s in progress.”

The notion of progression resonates with McKenzie’s career path as well. “I create opportunities for myself, and I don’t take no for an answer,” she says. “A lot of times for Black, queer, non-binary and trans artists, that’s often the case. We create our own space and carve our own path.”

Although Tygapaw is one of the biggest names in New York nightlife, McKenzie says she was surprised to be asked to be part of the Underplayed documentary. “I’m an underground artist, Black and queer, and I also present in a certain way; I’m not high femme,” she notes. “There’s no overnight success for people who look like me; there’s a continuous work ethic — being ridiculously resilient and continuing to have a vision for yourself.”

Interestingly, McKenzie says another creative in the documentary is someone she admired as she was coming up through the touring circuit. “Tokimonsta has been an inspiration,” she says about fellow subject Jennifer Lee. “I saw her live at a festival where I was playing a smaller room, and now it’s come full circle where I’m in a documentary with her. Life is funny and interesting that way.”

And since McKenzie knows first-hand what example and encouragement can lead to, she says that the opportunity to be a voice in the film was important to her. “It’s really to empower young Black girls to know that they’re good enough. You can shine as bright as you want because you’re completely capable.”

NERVO

Photograph by by Chloe Paul

Like many of their peers, twin musical act Nervo acquired their aptitude after years of training — for them, in piano, violin and voice. Miriam and Olivia Nervo — who have recorded tracks with Kylie Minogue and Kesha and got their big break with a Grammy Award-winning song they co-wrote with David Guetta and Kelly Rowland — grew up in Australia in the musical-theatre world and haven’t stopped stealing the stage since.

“I think our singing teachers would roll over in their graves if they could hear us now,” Miriam notes with a laugh, as the pair have lent their vocal skills to pop-fuelled tunes that are a far cry from the formal arrangements they once studied. “The greatest thing about pop music is that it’s super-creative,” she says. “It’s all about breaking rules and doing what you feel.”

One gets a sense of this free-spirited nature via Nervo’s wardrobe choices — a mix that includes bodysuits, outsized tops and jackets and a selection of silky boxing shorts from Thailand. “We’ve always had fun with fashion and our hair,” says Miriam. “The best part of our job is being able to wear the best wardrobe.”

Always ones to follow their own beat, the sisters took a course in music production after several experiences of having their music “ripped off” by producers. When asked about the discrimination they’ve encountered, Miriam says: “We’ve always been around that. It’s part of being a woman in a male-dominated industry — you experience it in all aspects, from talent scouting and development to working with other artists.”

In order to shine a light on these challenges, the two were keen to be part of Underplayed; they had performed as part of the Bud Light House Party Tour and loved the experience. But they’re quick to point out that their interest doesn’t ultimately lie in shaming aggressors. “It doesn’t do us any service to name them,” says Olivia. “It’s tricky airing dirty laundry about our male counterparts in the business,” adds Miriam. “Yes, some of them haven’t been supportive or have been sexist, but our nature is to focus on the good and move forward.”

Miriam and Olivia notably used the documentary’s platform to demonstrate one women’s issue that’s still deeply under-represented in the entertainment industry: being a working mother. The pair announced their pregnancies in 2018 and avidly share the journey with fans. “That part of our lives we’re very open about,” says Miriam. “There are a lot of DJs who are fathers, but you wouldn’t know it from their social media,” adds Olivia.

Recalling the women who have influenced their musicality since they were teenagers — like Irish DJ Annie Mac and British musician Sonique as well as their relationship with music manager Amy Thomson, whom they credit as being a strong single mother — the Nervo sisters can’t help but look forward to a world with more female representation across all industries.

“I’m so optimistic for their lives,” says Miriam about her daughter’s and niece’s future. “I think women and girls these days are getting great opportunities. Society is changing.” And not a minute too soon.

CIEL

Photograph courtesy of ciel

When Toronto-based DJ, promoter and producer Cindy Li — also known as Ciel — isn’t visiting one of her favourite local shops, like vintage haunts Nouveau Riche Vintage, Public Butter and Common Sort, she’s directing her attention to not only her craft but also making the music industry a more equitable place.

Li feels that much of the problem is rooted in confidence, having experienced her own self-esteem struggles, which started when she was a young piano student. “I didn’t think I had it in me,” she recalls about making the move to create her own music after years of classical training. “Growing up in that world…there’s this idea that talent is innate. That kind of thinking is especially harmful for women because we aren’t as encouraged.”

This is something that Li has worked actively throughout her life to combat. “When I interact with women at workshops and on social media, I’m always trying to encourage them to not let fear stop them,” she says. “Anyone can make music if they want to and if they have the time and dedication.”

Though Li, who also ran a fashion blog in the 2010s, took a hiatus from the music scene for several years, she returned to nurture experimentations in sound—her tracks are melodic, intentional and uplifting—as well as encourage a new community by throwing parties with a fellow female entrepreneur. The events brought together “a queer-, woman-, POC-heavy community of people” at a time when “most lineups were 99 per cent male.” And although these parties made headway in terms of illustrating what equality in the music industry could look like, Li says that slowly, over time, she found that her influence was limited. “In the existing community—and you can see this in other cities as well—people were OK to just keep doing what they were doing.”

This was evident when Li called out a successful promoter in Toronto who until that point “had consistently booked all-male lineups and actually hadn’t booked a single woman in six years.” She recounts the experience as being something she would advise others against, even though call-out culture has become ubiquitous across industries. “It was really intense, and I don’t recommend it,” she says. “It was mentally trying for me. Leading by example is great if you have a lot of patience. Calling out will get you more immediate results but not necessarily the results you desire. A lot of times when you call someone out, they just shut down and end the project rather than trying to do better. The group that I called out stopped throwing parties. Of course, I was blamed for their disbanding. But I didn’t ask them to disband; I just criticized them for not booking women.”

In spite of this experience, Li hasn’t lost her drive to inspire others. “The way the industry looks now versus how it looked five years ago is hugely different,” she says. “There are way more women on lineups.” But she adds that with an uptick in representation comes the danger of insincerity. “I’ve been the token female DJ on an all-male lineup,” she says, noting that she’s also experienced multiple instances of payment disparity with her male peers. “For a man to say something like ‘I’m not going to play your party unless you pay me $500’ — it’s very rare for women in the industry to have that level of confidence,” she explains. “That’s a much deeper problem in examining inequality — a lot of women lack the self-confidence to compete with full gusto against their male counterparts.”

Li says that there’s much work to be done for the music industry to eliminate discrimination, highlighting the fact that female DJs are still treated differently even when it comes to accolades — for example, in the separate list rankings for top DJs and then top female DJs. “We’re trying to achieve integration and equality,” she says, adding that what it all comes down to is this: “Women need their existence to be normalized.”

This story appears in the October issue of FASHION magazine, available on newsstands from September 10th and and via Apple News + today.

Photography by Iakovos kalaItzakIs. Styling by Ryan WeavIng. Creative direction by geoRge antonopoulos. left: Jacket, $4,930, corset, $3,830, and skirt, $1,255, andreas kronthaler for vivienne westwood. right: Jumpsuit, $2,275, vivienne westwood. necklaces and gloves, stylist’s own.

The post The <em>Underplayed</em> Documentary Shines a Light on Gender Inequality in Electronic Music appeared first on FASHION Magazine.

The Underplayed Documentary Shines a Light on Gender Inequality in Electronic Music published first on https://borboletabags.tumblr.com/

0 notes

carpediempagesite · 7 years

Text

The Slow Food Experiment

As you might remember, I’m currently in the middle of doing a year of slow living experiments. I say you might remember because you wouldn’t have known it in June. One of the commitments I made to myself before starting these experiments is that I wouldn’t write them on a list and do them in order. Instead, I promised myself I would slow down whichever area of my life felt like it needed it most. I experimented with slow mornings, slow money, slow moving, slow breathing, and slow technology because that’s what I needed. And after losing the dogs in May, I needed to do nothing in June. So, that’s what I did.

Well, I didn’t exactly do nothing. I had a quiet week in Victoria with my dad, and another quiet week in Squamish with friends. Then I packed two pieces of carry-on luggage and flew to Minneapolis, where I had another quiet week with friends. From Minneapolis, I hopped in a friends’ car and drove all the way back to Squamish. We spent two nights on a homestead in the Black Hills National Forest, two nights on a ranch outside of Jackson (with Sarah!) and three nights in Boise. It was slow and quiet. Some of the driving days were fast, but we filled them with podcasts and stories and conversation. I didn’t do a slow living experiment. I was living slowly.

I’m grateful I was able to take so much time off in June and that I could spend it with people who love and support me. It was an incredible gift. The only thing that didn’t feel great, by the end of it, was my body. Driving through the Midwest and parts of the West can leave you with few options for food. By the time we entered Wyoming, I was counting down to the day I could make a green smoothie at home. I was making the best choices I could with the options I had, but it wasn’t what I’m used to. And even before I got home, I knew which slow living experiment I needed to do in July: slow food.

What is Slow Food?

The slow food movement started in Italy in 1989, shortly after the country’s first McDonald’s franchise opened in Rome. As their website says, Slow Food is a grassroots organization that was founded “to prevent the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, counteract the rise of fast life and combat people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from and how our food choices affect the world around us.” A lot of the work they do is around food production itself and political activism. It’s a noble cause. But for the sake of this experiment, I’m going to focus on the one thing I can change right now: the food I put into my body.

My Personal Slow Food Experiment

It will start with eating home-cooked meals. I don’t eat a lot of fast food in my normal daily life, as it is, but I’m not going to eat any in July. I want to touch and chop up and cook every ingredient my meals contain. I want to spend just a little more time in the kitchen, so I can appreciate how my meals are prepared. And I would love for my meals to require 10 ingredients or less. The one exception that will allow me to maintain traditions and socialize with friends is I’m going to let myself eat out once a week at the restaurants I know serve locally-sourced food (including the food they grow themselves): The Village in Victoria and Fergie’s in Squamish.

Speaking of locally-sourced food, as part of this experiment, I’m going to see how many ingredients I can swap out for ones that can be sourced in Squamish or in BC as a whole. I’m not going to be super restrictive with this one yet, and not allow myself to eat something just because it’s not from here. I simply want to pay more attention, do some research and swap out as many ingredients as I can.

And then speaking of ingredients, the biggest change I’ll be making this month is cutting out meat from my diet. I was a vegetarian for four years (2009-2013), then went back to eating meat for the past four years, and I have to be honest: it hasn’t always felt great. I really don’t want this to spark any kind of heated arguments, because I think everyone is entitled to eat whatever they want – meat-eaters, vegetarians and vegans alike – so please consider this a safe space for everyone, as we do for every other topic we discuss here. But I do want to share where my head and heart have been at on this topic.

When I decided to become a vegetarian in 2009, it was my way of taking a stance on the animal cruelty that we know exists in the production of our meat. I was a very healthy vegetarian for four years, meaning I ate a balanced diet and got protein from lots of other ingredients. But after travelling for a month straight and not always making healthy choices, I could feel my body physically craving it for the first time and I gave in. Looking back now, I know there were other sources at play. Most of my friends had never supported my decision, so there was definitely some peer pressure. I was also seeing a guy who ate meat and didn’t feel strong enough to maintain my conviction in our new relationship. These aren’t great reasons, I know, but they are honest ones.

I’ve been eating meat again since May 2013, and when I say it hasn’t always felt great, I mean that mostly in a physical sense. As an example, I know my body doesn’t love beef. It just doesn’t. It also doesn’t really like pork. And if we look at non-meat ingredients, like sugar, I know my body doesn’t love that either. It’s interesting that we can know these things about ourselves, but it usually takes a long time (and countless reminders) for us to make a serious change and stop consuming what doesn’t serve us. For me personally, most of my reminders were dished out on the two cross-country road trips I’ve done this year.

There are many different variations of a quote that essentially says we would all be vegetarians if slaughterhouses had glass walls. Whether or not that’s true, I can’t say for sure. But I know I don’t even need to see what happens inside. My heart hurt enough when I saw truck after truck stuffed full of animals on their way to the slaughterhouse on my solo road trip last year. This shouldn’t have been earth-shattering news, but I’ve always been so far removed from the process that seeing it in action gave me pause. So, my own version of that quote would say something along the lines of this: if we could actually see how our food was produced and processed, we might stop eating it.

It gave me pause last summer, but I continued eating meat. From that day on, however, I’ve always felt like there was a misalignment in the food choices I was making. And during the two weeks I was travelling in June, the misalignment became more and more obvious. First, sitting in the passenger seat gave me the opportunity to see even more trucks stuffed full of animals. Then I stayed on that homestead in South Dakota, where the owners were vegan and vegetarian, and we had some great discussions about it (while hanging out with the wife’s chickens). Friends from home sent me news stories about the animal cruelty happening at Lilydale in BC. I felt physically ill for about five days. And then I watched the documentary What the Health on Netflix.

Again, I’m just sharing my personal experience here. I respect everyone’s decision to eat whatever they want and know our decisions are all personal. I think one of the reasons I’ve been so hesitant to switch back to a vegetarian diet is because of the constant criticism it came with. Some people felt like it was a personal attack on their decision to eat meat, and others told me I wasn’t being “good enough to the animals” because I was still eating eggs. The reactions were similar to my decision to quit drinking. Whenever you decide to live a counter-cultural life, people have something to say about it – and when you love those people, it hurts.

But I’m finally at a place where I’m comfortable making the decision to switch back. I know it’s not only a way to say that I care about animal welfare, but it’s also better for my health. (Seriously, watch What the Health.) I don’t know where this change will take me in the future. Maybe I’ll eventually give up eggs and switch to a vegan diet. Maybe I won’t. But in tune with all the experiments I’m doing this year, this is what I need right now.

Experiment #6: Slow Food

Eat mostly* home-cooked meals

*Eat out max. once/week at restaurants that use locally-sourced ingredients

Swap out some ingredients for stuff that can be sourced in Squamish or BC

Switch back to a vegetarian diet

Eat slowly :)

My goal for this experiment isn’t for “slow food” to be slow, in that it takes up a lot of time or mental energy. I simply want to continue to make more mindful decisions about the food I’m putting into my body, and enjoy that food rather than eat it like it’s going to be taken away from me. I don’t eat a lot of fast food, but I do have a bad habit of eating food quickly. I want to stop that and appreciate what I get to put into my body each and every day. I also want the food choices I make to align with my values. So, that’s the plan. And before the month is up, I’ll be sure to share some of my favourite meals and recipes with you!

For now, I’d love to know yours: do you have any favourite vegetarian/vegan recipes? Or links to favourite recipe blogs?

The Slow Food Experiment posted first on cashforcarsperthblog.blogspot.com

0 notes

cash4youblog · 7 years

Text

The Slow Food Experiment

What is Slow Food?

My Personal Slow Food Experiment

Experiment #5: Slow Food

Eat mostly* home-cooked meals

*Eat out max. once/week at restaurants that use locally-sourced ingredients

Swap out some ingredients for stuff that can be sourced in Squamish or BC

Switch back to a vegetarian diet

Eat slowly :)

For now, I’d love to know yours: do you have any favourite vegetarian/vegan recipes? Or links to favourite recipe blogs?

The Slow Food Experiment posted first on http://ift.tt/2sSbQiu

0 notes

fesahaawit · 7 years

Text

The Slow Food Experiment

What is Slow Food?

My Personal Slow Food Experiment

Experiment #5: Slow Food

Eat mostly* home-cooked meals

*Eat out max. once/week at restaurants that use locally-sourced ingredients

Swap out some ingredients for stuff that can be sourced in Squamish or BC

Switch back to a vegetarian diet

Eat slowly :)

For now, I’d love to know yours: do you have any favourite vegetarian/vegan recipes? Or links to favourite recipe blogs?

The Slow Food Experiment posted first on http://ift.tt/2lnwIdQ

0 notes

multiracialmedia-blog · 7 years

Text

Why Saying "6.9% of the US Population" is Mixed Race is the Right Number for the Wrong Reasons

Why Saying “6.9% of the US population is Mixed Race” is the Right Number for the Wrong Reasons.

Sometimes a report comes out and the data just seems to speak to you. You can read the numbers and say “Yeah, that sounds about right.” And then there’s the 2015 study from the Pew Research Center that put the size of the multiracial population at 6.9%. Every time I hear this number cited by my fellow Mixed Race Commentators my hairs bristle, I suck in my teeth, then I let out a deep sigh with a wag of my head and here’s the reason why.

Once upon a time people in the US were segregated by an odious system of racial apartheid known colloquially as Jim Crow. Since race mixing was a fact of life in spite of the prohibitions against sexual relations, it became necessary to determine clearly who was and was not a member of the black race to know how to enforce the law. The system they developed became known as the “one drop rule” to suggest that any amount of black ancestry introduced a “drop” of black blood and that was all that was needed to make someone black.

A reverse system was used among Native Americans. “Blood quantum” numbers attempted to reduce the size of tribal populations to then attempt to seize native lands. If a tribe became “watered down” enough in Native American purity then the tribe could be claimed to no longer exist. The point is that using ancestry to determine individual identity was intended to be an oppressive act.

This was the source, in part, for Maria P.P. Root to include in her “Bill of Rights for People of Mixed Heritage” to state things like “I have the right to identify myself differently than strangers expect me to identify.” Among other self-affirmations, the litany of rights presented by Root essentially boils down to one thing: self-identification is the only valid form of identification. Slowly, government agencies within the US have been moving towards this goal.

Enter Stage Left: the Pew Research Center’s Notion of 6.9% of the US Population

At first blush, the Pew’s study on multiracial people was really exciting. I always felt the Pew had a good reputation for honest reporting and kudos to them for considering the mixed race community important enough to dedicate resources to studying us. Their report had multiple chapters exploring many aspects of mixed identity. For some reason, the chapter that grabbed my attention the most was on politics. Simply put, the multiracial community seemed evenly split on many social and political issues.

Having been involved in the multiracial movement for over 25 years I have come to know many multiracial people of all stripes. And while we are certainly not monolithic in our thinking, I believe I have a fairly good idea about how most people in the multiracial community feel about certain political issues. If I were to characterize the multiracial community politically, I would definitely say it is left of center. Perhaps not as far left as some racial minority groups, but still leaning to port. So why did the Pew seem to indicate we are so divided? I was determined to find out.

My first clue was this number 6.9% of the US population. How did the Pew end up with such a large number when the Census Bureau, with a larger sample size, stated only 2.9% in 2010? The answer lay in their methodology for who they counted as multiracial. First they began with a method of self-identification. Anyone in their survey that claimed two races or literally “multiracial” was counted as multiracial. But if they claimed only one race the Pew went a step further and asked for the race of their parents. If the parents were of different races, then the study individual was counted as mixed even if they themselves didn’t identify that way.

And if that wasn’t bad enough they went a step further. If the parents claimed the same race they then asked about the race of the grandparents. If any grandparent claimed a different race, or even a mixed race identity, then the study participant was counted as mixed race. So in theory, a family could have a legend of a long lost Native American ancestor and that would suddenly make the study individual mixed race.

In fact, this is likely what happened. According to the 2010 Census, only 16% of the mixed race population, or about 1.5 million people, identified as mixed white and Native American. However, according to the Pew study, the mixed race population is twice the size and 50% of that community, or about 11.4 million people, are mixed white and Native American. That’s more than a 700% increase!

This is a problematic methodology for a number of reasons. First of all, it violates the ethos of the multiracial community embodied by Maria Root’s “Bill of Rights.” It overwrites self-identification using ancestry just like the “one drop rule” and “blood quantum” rules had done. If the community wishes to be consistent in its values then this cannot be acceptable.

Secondly, this may not even be accurate. Many individuals and families claimed Native American ancestry to cover up black ancestry. While the stigmas may have faded with time, the legends remain and can skew our understanding of racial mixing.

Remember how I mentioned how the community was divided politically? I became inspired to recalculate the Pew study numbers eliminating the white and Native American community. I chose this group since it had the highest difference compared to the Census numbers. Arguably that’s an arbitrary decision, but I’m not going for scientific truth. Rather I wanted to test the sensitivity of the results to the inflated mixed white and Native American numbers. If the remainder of the mixed community agreed with white-Native Americans then there should be no change in the numbers.

My algorithm to recalculate was limited to the results that the Pew presented as aggregate alongside white and Native American. Some of the results are shown in the attached figure. The top bar in each graph is the Pew’s results and the bottom bar is mine. In a few cases the changes were minor, but as can be seen some of the changes are highly significant as in double digit changes.

I can understand the interest the multiracial community has in the 6.9% population size. For so long our community has been relegated to the fringes of society and so little valid research has been done about us. And then to see a study that greatly inflates our numbers is a real boost to the ego. But we shouldn’t rush to embrace something simply because it is nice to hear. The irony here is that the Pew’s numbers might still be correct, but not for the reasons the Pew thinks.

Today, Latinos are not considered a race by the Census Bureau and the Pew agrees with them. Latino identity is asked as a separate question from racial identity. As a result, when the Census Bureau and the Pew tabulate mixed race folks, they don’t usually include Latinos. (The Pew did have a chapter on mixed Latinos but they still applied the flawed ancestral methodology so I’m not going to go into that here.) But the Census Bureau has been testing a new methodology where Latino IS counted as a race and thus Latino identity may be tabulated in combination with other racial groups.

The initial results of this methodology can be found in the 2010 Alternative Questionnaire Experiment or AQE conducted by the Census Bureau. In this test, in one format of the question, the “Two or More” population jumped to 6.8%! Other formats saw increases as well. However, unlike the Pew these were self-identifying people (not descendants from distant ancestors) and the bulk of the increase was due to mixed Latino and non-Latino identifying people (not inflated white and Native American numbers).

So what number should multiracial commentators use? Should we even report one number at all? Core to multiracial identity is being comfortable with ambiguity. Perhaps a range of numbers should be reported and when readers respond with confusion we start a dialog that leads to a greater understanding about what these categories mean. Identity is not something that can be fit neatly into a box. This is really just step one in deconstructing race and evolving our society.

Do you have any thoughts about why saying “6.9% of the US population is Mixed Race” is the right number for the wrong reasons?

Why Saying “6.9% of the US Population” is Mixed Race is the Right Number for the Wrong Reasons if you want to check out other voices of the Multiracial Community click here Multiracial Media

#6.9% of the US population

0 notes

sweetsuccesssociety · 7 years

Text

Why We March

Today, all across the globe (literally, the GLOBE, so crazy!) over a million women, men, children, and just generally awesome people marched together to deliver a peaceful, impactful, and empowering message. The photos of the seas of hot pink pussy cat hats and creative signage are enough to get you inspired, but the feeling on the ground was electric. This was a shining example of why I truly believe that together, we can accomplish anything.

Boom.

Deciding to head down to the Women’s March today made me sit back a little and think about exactly why I wanted to be a part of this. Besides the obvious reasons – you know – equal pay, a woman’s right to her body, not standing for misogyny – the usual, I had some deep personal reasons fire me up to be a participant in this movement. Disclaimer: this post is going to veer off from the usual course and get into some pretty serious stuff that some people may find uncomfortable. I always try to be real with you guys, but this subject matter might be troubling/triggering to some – just an FYI…it’s about to get real real, y’all.

I was raised a feminist by open minded, educated, feminist parents who encouraged me to be a strong, confident, respectful woman. I was fortunate enough to be told that my voice matters, and that all human beings deserve equal human rights. Something weird happened to my sense of self in high school. Before that, I had been fearless, confident, and secure in myself and my beliefs. I allowed myself to lose my sense of self respect and self confidence, which played into a series of experiences that caused me a lot of pain, but also interestingly enough shaped the passion and purpose that drives me today.

Let me just say this: no matter what kind of state a woman is in, broken or strong or something in between, she is to be respected and it needs to be understood that no means freaking no. Looking back on many of my experiences with the opposite sex, I see how rampant misogyny and misinformation can be even with generally good humans. I also see how uninformed and confused many young women are about their value, boundaries, and fundamental rights. I know I was. I lost my virginity before I was truly ready, because I thought it made me more valuable. The beginning of my distorted sense of my own sexuality and authority over my own body began with believing that sex was what defined my value, but it expanded from there with a series of events in which ‘no’ apparently did not mean ‘HELL NO”. Before I reached 21, I was sexually assaulted. Twice. I guarantee that is not as unusual as you probably think it is. The first time was the second time I had sex, ever. I was very young, very tipsy, and very alone with someone I barely knew who I felt safe with because he was charismatic, soft spoken, and in college. Looking back, he wore a fucking fedora literally at all times, which seems like a pretty solid red flag. I’m talking even when swimming. But maybe that was cool in 2004? I specifically remember going very quickly from feeling comfortable and happy to totally freaked out. Despite the amount that I had to drink, I clearly remember saying ‘no’ firmly and repeatedly, and physically trying to pull his hands off me, even using not being on birth control and not having a condom as a bargaining chip to get him to leave me alone. He was not violent, and it honestly didn’t dawn on me that this was sexual assault because of that; he was complimenting me and telling me nice things while touching me without my permission, it didn’t feel like what I envisioned sexual assault being like. But it was, because in the end, he didn’t take no for an answer and what happened was non-consensual. The next week, I went to Planned Parenthood to get birth control and my first pap smear so I could feel more in control, but I didn’t tell anyone about what had happened until confiding in a boyfriend years later. I was afraid that I either wouldn’t be believed, or that it would be pinned on me for being drunk and putting myself in a bad situation. Honestly? Sad as it is, it probably would have. In my heart, I knew it was not okay, but I made it out to be something that didn’t bother me. News flash: being coerced into unwanted sexual activity by a twenty-two year old Kevin Federline wannabe when you’re 16 years old, in reality, a bit troubling.

The following year on a spring break trip, what began as a fun makeout session in a car outside of a party (weird, but teenagers, man) was quickly heading towards something more – even when I said specifically that I didn’t want to have sex, he pulled my skirt off, slapped on protection – always remember safety when you’re feeling rape-y!, and literally picked me up and put me on top of him. He groped my neck and breasts so aggressively (which hurt like a bitch) that I had bruises so dark I couldn’t wear a swimsuit for the rest of the trip. Yes, I could have fought him off or screamed for my friends or tried to get out of the car, but that is not always how it works. When someone doesn’t listen when you say no or makes you feel bad about yourself for denying sex, it’s often tough to take yourself out of the situation. Just because sexual assault is not a violent attack does not make it okay. Manipulation and coercion may not be outright rape, but they are not acceptable. I pretended to my friends that it had been all in fun, and we even joked about the massive black and blue handprints on my chest. Since everyone thought he was so charming and good looking (he was gorgeous, just kind of a misogynistic dickwad), I didn’t want to sound like I was complaining for getting attention from a hot guy.

Later in life, I dated many truly wonderful men (and a few not so wonderful, but that’s life). I also had a few casual hookups as an adult that I entered into confidently and with full consent, and those felt great. Don’t get me wrong – I love sex, but you know, I prefer to consent to it…call me crazy. I also continued to experience something that didn’t seem that weird to me at the time but is so weird: being pressured to have sex after clearly saying ‘no’. I had a guy I went home with after a party actually yell at me for being a ‘tease’ and I quote: “wasting his time”, when I refused to do anything more than kiss him. When I finally met the wonderful man who is now my husband, I hadn’t had sex in almost a year. I seriously believed that in order to respect myself and attract a quality guy, I had to completely swear off sex. I didn’t realize that I should have been able to say yes to sex when I wanted it, and no when I didn’t – and that my answer should be taken as firm and final. I didn’t realize that I was powerful, valuable, and allowed to be a sexual being without being taken advantage of. I didn’t realize that I was more than I gave myself credit for. This is a problem at the core of how women view themselves, and how men view women.

Listen – the me of today would have yelled a big ol’ “HELL NO” to those men that took my initial ‘no’ for a ‘maybe’, but the me of today is a different woman. The me of today is a feminist that doesn’t stand for any fuckery when it comes to fundamental human rights and I am not afraid of making a scene or raising my voice. However, that was not the case when I was younger – which is why I’m hell bent on empowering women from an early age and providing them with education, information, unwavering confidence, and a world wide support system.

I didn’t share my story for sympathy or to dwell in the past; I’m not whining or blaming anyone else. I’ve had a great life and great relationships. I think men are great, and I think women are strong. I’m happily married to a man that declares himself a proud feminist; I still love sex, I don’t hate men, and I’m not damaged – I’m actually more confident and courageous than I ever knew I could be. However I do think that as young women – and young men – we’re not empowered, informed, or supported the way that we should be. I think that misogyny is normalized, and consent is often overlooked. I think women are taught that sexuality is either a useful tool or something shameful, instead of something that should be used for mutual pleasure and under mutual consent. I think that men making decisions on women’s reproductive rights is wrong, and that placing any blame on sexual assault victims is unforgivable – I don’t care how short your skirt is or how sloppy drunk you are; the word NO means specifically that, and literally NO ONE is ever, ever asking to be raped. I think that “keep your legs closed” and “cover up” need to be taken out of our vocabulary – there is nothing wrong with choosing to express your sexuality when it comes from an empowered and confident place and it shouldn’t make you a target. I believe that misinformation when it comes to women’s rights, to rape culture, and to what the f**k Planned Parenthood actually does (hint: provide important healthcare and information for both pro-choice and pro-life women and men) is way too high for 2017. When it comes down to it, I’m actually in a weird way glad for the experiences that I’ve had, because it fuels me to be an advocate for young women. That’s why this is personal to me, and that’s why I march.

I march to help create a world where women choose what happens to their bodies and are respected.

I march to remind people that consent is not something to be argued.

I march to empower women to feel strong, equal, powerful, and valued.

I march to foster collaboration – not competition – amongst women.

I march to end ‘slut-shaming’, body shaming, and victim shaming – and let women feel ownership of their sexuality.

I march to stand up against the normalization of any ‘locker room talk’ that includes joking about sexual assault.

I march for organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide guidance, education, and vital healthcare to women (and men). This has nothing to do with abortion: Planned Parenthood allows access to crucial reproductive healthcare, birth control, counseling, and pre-natal care to many people who need it.

I march to make sure that the next generation grows up to know that they are important and valuable, and that they are wholly in charge of their bodies and what they do with them.

I march to show the world that we as women are many things. We can be sexy, assertive, proud, silly, sweet, kind, driven, talented, capable, maternal, independent, vulnerable, open….we can be so many things. But I march to get rid of the perception that women are bossy, abrasive, less-than, nasty (unless you’re embracing it, Janet Jackson style), bitchy, whiny, pathetic, less deserving, man hating, slutty, or anything less than the wonderful things that we are.

I march as a wife, a daughter, a future parent, an advocate, a lover of men, a proud feminist, a hopeful optimist, and as a human being.

Why do YOU march?

The post Why We March appeared first on Sweet Success Society.

from Why We March

#Why We March

0 notes

loudlytransparenttrash · 7 years

Text

The left’s perversion of children

An eight-month-old Canadian baby who is female, is the first child in the world to have their gender marked as “unknown” on official documents. The baby will have a “U” (for “undetermined” or “unassigned”) in place of an “M” or an “F”. The baby’s mother, or father, or whatever they call themselves, also refuses to be defined by any single gender.

A father forces his eight-year-old daughter to recite hands up don’t shoot and to believe that black people are being hunted and gunned down by racist white people to the point where she bursts into tears with fear and confusion. Another child is forced into tears when her mom tells her that she will be targeted by police because of her skin color. The same series shows a mom teaching her daughter that Republicans hate women and black people, they also find it hilarious teaching their kids how to masturbate and how to have sex.

A mother forced her three-year-old son to start ballet dancing as punishment for liking boy things. It all stemmed from one day, she says, she handed her son a flower and he said he did not want it. His other crimes involved not liking Frozen and pink popsicles. The mother thinks that if her three-year-old son rejects random feminine tastes now, he’ll reject concepts like “kindness and decency” in the future and she fears he will not respect women.

A Texas mom has demanded for her local kindergarten to allow her five-year-old “transgender daughter” to use the girl’s bathroom. The kindergarten has gender neutral bathroom options available but this is not good enough, as the mom believes that not using the girls’ bathroom would affect her child’s well being.

A new teaching aid is telling school children that terrorists kill people because they believe they are “treated unfairly and not shown respect,” and related terrorists struggles to the women’s Suffragettes movement, saying “The Suffragettes used violence and were called terrorists. Today many people think of them as brave women and admire their struggle.” Talking About Terrorism recommends teachers “invite children to write a letter to a terrorist” to better understand their cause which will lead to “greater tolerance.”

A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender expression.”

I can’t even find the words to describe this one, just watch.

Lesbian gender non-comforming moms are raising their two-year-old son to also be genderless. Buzzfeed celebrated them in this video as they laugh about forcing their son to wear dresses as he cries “no!” and teaching him that the little boys and girls in his books aren’t really boys and girls and oh, they’re also shocked that even after raising him to be genderless, their son still acts like a boy.

The author of a children’s coloring book has invented a character named “Toni the Tampon” to instruct children that men can menstruate. Cass Clemmer, the author of The Adventures of Toni the Tampon, has been using her coloring book character to “destigmatize” menstruation. Now, however, she also wants to “de-gender” the female biological process and to persuade children that men get periods too.

Transgender activists are furious a documentary was aired featuring an expert who believes that helping children with gender issues feel comfortable in their own bodies is preferable to encouraging them to mutilate and distort themselves into believing they are the opposite sex. Activists concerned about the film Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best? say they fear that the decision to give airtime to the views of Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker will “damage the lives of trans children.” Zucker was fired and the world-renowned child gender clinic he ran for 30 years was shut down.

Parents who oppose their children being forced to share bathrooms and shower rooms with opposite-sex kids must begin “putting aside their prejudices,” says a leading transgender activist. Mara Kiesling and her supporters are pushing for government-enforced nationwide changes in civic practice about sex and kids, even though available data shows fewer than 0.3 percent of the population try to live as members of the opposite sex, and that very few “gender confused” young kids continue their transgender feelings into adulthood.

FCKH8 put several girls as young as six in front of a camera and told them to say ‘fuck’ a lot while they explain to everyone “I shouldn’t need a penis to get paid,” “which one of us will be the one in five who will be raped by a man,” and “our worth comes from the shape of our ass.” The video then shows a boy in a dress, followed by some large woman encouraging people to buy ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirt.

Mother’s Day is banned from several schools, with children being told they cannot celebrate or create gifts for their mothers in an effort to “celebrate diversity, inclusivity, and also to nurture our students who are part of non-traditional families.”

A government-funded study calls for adjusting a measurement used to determine obesity to correct for differences across ethnic groups. The race-based adjustments lower the Body Mass Index for children of African descent, making them seem thinner. Scientists studied children of various ethnic groups between the ages of 4 and 12, and developed a race-based technique to “adjust” BMI definitions to ethnicity. The new adjustments mean black children are less likely to be classified as overweight or obese than a white child with the same BMI as you know, it’s racist to be honest these days.

Another school has displayed posters providing messages to its students of support and love. Undocumented students are loved and told that they are safe and there are no walls in this classroom, that black students are loved and their life matters, that Muslim students are loved and are not terrorists, that Mexican students are loved and are not rapists, that LGBT students are loved and are perfect, that female students are loved and that they will not let men grab them. And that’s where the love stops. Missing an entire group of kids…

Doctors have been told to refer to expectant mothers as “pregnant people” so as not to offend transgender people in official guidelines issued by Medical Associations. The booklet states: “A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. However, there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant. We can include intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant by saying “pregnant people” instead of “expectant mothers.”

A video produced by a Rochester family entertainer aims to teach young children to accept adults of the opposite sex entering their bathrooms. In Mr. Loops’ video, he and his wife dance around bathroom stalls with animal character puppets, singing “No matter your gender, we gotta remember, it all comes out the same in the end.” LGBTQ Nation’s assessment applauded it, saying Mr. Loops’ video “explains bathrooms and bigots in the best possible way.”

A father teaches his confused seven-year-old daughter why she isn’t allowed to say all lives matter. Because she is white, she can only say black lives matter. He goes on to explain to her after she tells him she wants to grow up to be like Martin Luther King Jr, that she cannot as she is not oppressed and she is just “another well intentioned white person.”

Another couple sat their six and eight-year-old children down to tell them that black people are being hunted by police officers, that is why Black Lives Matter exists. They say their child interrupted them as they were giving their lecture, and they snapped, saying “This isn’t the right time for a joke.” As they tucked their daughter into bed, they told her a bed time story of how black people are being targeted and abused by police for no reason, and they took great pride in how progressive and woke their child was when she said she wants to stop police from hurting black people. She concludes, “I realized, with sadness and shame, that, if we had been black, we would have had these conversations long ago.”

Teachers in California are struggling to calm children down about the election of Donald Trump. At an elementary in San Pablo, a teacher held what’s called a ‘restorative circle’ with about 24 of her nine-year-old students. They each took turns holding a yellow ball and expressed a gamut of emotions from despair to hopelessness about the future under Trump.

They also love taking children to protests and giving them grown up signs to hold. We see three-year-olds holding signs saying ‘I like unicorns and reproductive health care,’ ’my body my choice,’ ‘GOP Hands Off Me,’ and ‘white silence equals violence’ at the Women’s March and during Black Lives Matter protests, they hold signs saying ‘please don’t shoot,’ ‘no justice no peace,’ ‘my generation is next, don’t shoot.’

A two-year-old boy started dancing like Beyoncé and when his parents asked him if he wanted to be a girl, he said yes. So the boy became a transgender girl. Controversy began in the child’s Minnesota kindergarten when the school decided to teach the other kindergarteners about gender identity and reading them stories about how they can change their gender if they feel like it. Ten kids transferred to another school after they began asking their parents if they could become transexual too. In response to the parents moving their children, LGBT activists lined the kindergarten hallway chanting slogans and holding signs.

Elementary schools are now holding “Black Lives Matter Day,” after school districts say “By almost every measure, people of color are not treated equally by our society." The school resource toolkit is used to teach lessons like “Looking at Race and Racial Identity Through Critical Literacy in Children’s Books” where coloring book pages that say “Black Youth Matter” are given to the kids and students must go through lessons titled, “Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System.” Students also watch Jesse Williams’ BET speech, as well as formulate responses as to why “All Lives Matter” isn’t a good response. The children will also be recommended websites discussing Michael Brown, as well as encouraged to read things like “White Privilege and Male Privilege” and “Black Lives Matter Syllabus,” which touches on the “moral ethics of black rage and riotous forms of protest,” and “the myth of black on black crime.”

North Carolina enrolled grade-school students in a “Black Lives March and Rally” where the teachers could opt-in or opt-out their classes, but parents were not given a choice. Stef Bernal-Martinez, a teacher of 6-year-old children, signed up all the children in her class for a “Black Lives March and Rally” to take place during the school day. Ms. Bernal-Martinez describes herself as a “Radical Queer Progressive Educator.” The school’s K-4 Associate Director, Raenel Duncan-Edmonds, brags the school is training “activists.”

After recent terror attacks, a children’s news website created a page for kids to learn about Islamophobia. It begins: “Following recent events in the news you might have been hearing a lot about Islam and maybe the term ‘Islamophobia’ - but what does this mean?” It declares that Islam is peaceful as “The word “Islam” comes from an old Arabic word meaning “peace,” although the following day they were forced to correct themselves, adding “The word “Islam” actually means “submission”, implying submission to Allah.”

A mother was summoned to her seven-year-old son’s elementary school and was told her son was at the centre of a ‘major incident.’ She was told that the situation was so serious she would have to sign an official form admitting her son was racist. Her son’s crime? Asking another student if he was from Africa. The kid broke down in tears when he was faced with a furious reaction from staff. The mother says, “I was told I would have to sign a form acknowledging my son had made a racist remark, which would be submitted to the local education authority for further investigation.”

An eight-year-old came home from school and asked their mom why she liked Trump when he is a racist and hates women. A headmaster of an elementary school gave a lecture featuring his own brand of politics, alarming the kids about the state of the world. He said he hoped to see his pupils again next week ‘if Trump has not pressed the nuclear button by then’, and sent them home with a newsletter reinforcing his point.

Bank Street School for Children has a new diversity program that is segregating children based upon their race. The “Racial Justice and Advocacy” program divides children into an “advocacy group” for white students and the “kids of color affinity group.” White children, beginning as early as age 6, are told “they’re born racist,” while students of color are “taught to feel proud about their race” and are given cupcakes and treats white children are denied. “Even white babies are capable of racism,” they say. The program is taught by the school’s director of diversity, Anshu Wahi, described as a “longtime social activist.” Wahi allegedly has also indicated in school presentation slides her desire to give students of color “a dedicated space” to “voice their feelings” and “share experiences about being a kid of color.”

Major stores have decided to remove ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ toy and bedding departments as gender activists believe a child playing with a “stereotypical” toy or a girl sleeping in pink princess bedding sets them on a path of conforming to damaging gender roles. Children are not gender neutral and if these loonies fresh out of their gender study classrooms believe otherwise, that’s probably because most of them have not yet had kids and really have no idea what children want.

A grade three class in Toronto took to the streets with signs and an oversized papier mache oil pipeline to protest the laying of an actual pipeline in western Canada. Also in Toronto, first-graders brought home student planners marked with the international days of zero tolerance on female genital mutilation and ending violence against sex workers. Another school banned best friends because that made other kids feel left out. A six-year-old boy in Denver was suspended for singing the pop anthem I’m Sexy and I Know It to a female classmate, violating the school’s sexual-harassment policy.

Kids are being taught about “male privilege” and shown images of men and women cleaning dishes and playing football as part of a program to break gender stereotypes and reduce domestic violence. The program’s material says children ages six to eight will be taught to chant statements such as “girls can be doctors and can be strong” and “boys can be gentle and can mind babies.” They will also be taught about male privilege, or “automatic, unearned benefits bestowed upon dominant groups based on gender and race.”

#sjw1

938 notes · View notes

carpediempagesite · 7 years

Text

The Slow Food Experiment

What is Slow Food?

My Personal Slow Food Experiment

Experiment #6: Slow Food

Eat mostly* home-cooked meals

*Eat out max. once/week at restaurants that use locally-sourced ingredients

Swap out some ingredients for stuff that can be sourced in Squamish or BC

Switch back to a vegetarian diet

Eat slowly :)

For now, I’d love to know yours: do you have any favourite vegetarian/vegan recipes? Or links to favourite recipe blogs?

The Slow Food Experiment posted first on cashforcarsperthblog.blogspot.com

0 notes

carpediempagesite · 7 years

Text

The Slow Food Experiment

What is Slow Food?

My Personal Slow Food Experiment

Experiment #5: Slow Food

Eat mostly* home-cooked meals

*Eat out max. once/week at restaurants that use locally-sourced ingredients

Swap out some ingredients for stuff that can be sourced in Squamish or BC

Switch back to a vegetarian diet

Eat slowly :)

For now, I’d love to know yours: do you have any favourite vegetarian/vegan recipes? Or links to favourite recipe blogs?

The Slow Food Experiment posted first on cashforcarsperthblog.blogspot.com

0 notes