pussyologist:

I was walking near the Port Authority Bus Terminal recently when a balding guy smoking a joint yells “Sexy Asian girl!” I give him a dirty look; he smiles.

As a 26-year-old Korean-American woman, I am wary of men whose attraction to Asian women leads to exaggerated gestures. I still remember Sam, the “Asiaphile” in my freshman dorm who majored in East Asian studies, practiced t’ai chi and presented handmade origami paper cranes to his love interests. Then there was Matt, whom I met at a wedding. When he mentioned that he was “really into Asian girls,” I wasn’t sure what he meant. I wondered if he had some perverse “Oriental” fantasy to satisfy. When I showed no interest, Matt moved on to Grace, the only other Asian girl in a reception of 150.

Asian women are everywhere. We rank No. 11 on the blog “Stuff White People Like” and star in a host of iPhone apps: “Cute Asian Girls” promised; “If you have yellow fever, this app is the cure!” “Asian Boobs,” which heralds our modest-sized racks, was a top seller for the App Store in October.

Now, we’re playing peek-a-boo in “Puff!” In this app, the user selects a photo from a scrolling selection of Japanese women, then blows into the iPhone microphone to lift the woman’s skirt and reveal her undergarments. The more vigorously the user blows and rubs the screen, the higher the skirt flies. Shyly attempting to cover herself, the woman yelps delightedly, wearing an inviting smile. “If the girls don’t react, try changing breath length,” instructions advise. “Winning a special bonus is all up to you!”

I’m infuriated at the thought of sitting next to some pervert on the subway furiously blowing and touching a woman who giggles adorably in response. But what I hate most about this app is that it feeds into an old and tired stereotype. The image of the voiceless, passive Asian woman is a common form of racism in visual media. She’s the “Puff!” woman - cutesy and obedient, she’d never kick a creep to the curb. She’s not too different from that saccharine Hello Kitty, the infantilized mail-order bride who promises to “love you long time” or the hypersexualized character in anime porn.

Passing off sexual stereotypes that reduce women as objects of so-called harmless fetishes is socially irresponsible. And it’s not harmless. By fostering a culture of behavior that denigrates one group of women, all women are denigrated. And that is unacceptable.

In 2005, a white Princeton graduate student admitted to secretly cutting locks of hair from nine Asian women. He apparently took the hair to fill women’s underwear and mittens, which he then used for personal sexual gratification. He even poured his urine and semen into the drinks of Asian women more than 50 times in the student dining hall.

In 2000, two Japanese women in Spokane, Wash., were raped by two white men and a woman who admitted to having a sexual fetish for “submissive” Asian women and targeted them because they believed the women’s submissiveness would prevent the assaults from being reported. In November of last year, police were searching for a serial rapist known for prowling the subway at Union Square for Asian women to follow home.

Contrary to their claim, tongue-in-cheek apps featuring “Cute Asian Girls” hardly “cure yellow fever.” Instead, by cashing in on insulting cliches, they only serve to spread the infection.

—Iris Chung. New York Daily News, 2009.

(via wordsandturds)

hinduthug:

gold hoops. red lipstick. maya.
winning.
unknowablewoman:

rubyvroom:

tooyoungforthelivingdead:

If you don’t know much about the history of the pink ribbon, or the massive cause marketing facets it has, then you need to watch this film.
The fight against breast cancer has been depoliticised. Pushes from pharma companies to produce a “cure”, combined with corporate links with fundraising campaigns, have fundamentally shifted the debate and public awareness of the disease.
History of the ribbon: corporate appropriation
The Guardian covered this in their recent article Cancer’s not pink:

The pink ribbon was originally orange. Conceived in 1990 by Charlotte Haley, a 68-year-old American, it was a grassroots protest against the fact that only 5% of the US National Cancer Institute’s budget was going towards cancer prevention.
When Estée Lauder asked to use the logo for a breast-cancer awareness campaign, Haley wanted nothing to do with it, saying she had no wish for them to use the ribbon as she felt it was too commercial. So the company changed the colour to pink, because research identified it as the most non-threatening, soothing colour – everything a cancer diagnosis isn’t.

Estee Lauder threatened Charlotte with their vast squad of lawyers, and then just evaded the legalities by slightly changing the colour.
From the start, a symbol tainted by corporate appropriation.
Cause marketing: framing it nice
Charities like Susan G Komen for the Cure (recently famous for their decision to not back Planned Parenthood) are largely responsible for the links between breast cancer fundraising and corporate cause marketing i.e. ‘buy this and part of the profits go to a good cause’.
The bottom line is that these companies only enter these partnerships because they are lucrative.
To be an effective sales tool, breast cancer needs to be portrayed as beatable. Positivity and reassurance mean that the more you buy, the more you’re helping is the dominant philosophy.
An off-shoot problem is that the focus on positivity is that it:
creates a frame of ‘the more I fight the more likely I am to succeed’, which promotes victim-blaming when it fails e.g. “oh you should have eaten more green veg”;
implies all breast cancer is always treatable and beatable;
softens something ugly and difficult, and invalidates the very valid feelings of anger people have.
This sanitising from corporate links took the teeth out of the growing movement pushing for prevention rather than a “cure”, and shifted focus from preventative options.
“It’s not a conspiracy, it’s business as usual”
Popular focus on the disease being beatable on one level encourages the quick fix self-help ideas you hear in the papers: “eat more fruit and veg”, “do more exercise”, etc.
What most people don’t know is that only 20-30% of breast cancer is caused by known risk factors. However, publicising this would undermining the public perception of the disease being manageable, and thus undermine the potential profits from cause marketing.
This focus on a cure encourages an atmosphere of medicalisation, even when that’s not necessarily beneficial for patients. 85% of funding goes towards cures in the form of pills that may only increase life expectancy by a small amount. Only 15% goes towards prevention of the disease - a far less lucrative market.
Of the money going to prevention, only a third is going towards investigating environmental causes for breast cancer. Another problem with corporate links: cause-marketing companies are ‘helping the cause’ whilst profiting from products that cause breast cancer.
A few quick examples: the estrogenic plastics used in Ford’s manufacturing; the rBGH growth hormone in dairy products (Yoplait); the fact that only 20% of ingredients in cosmetics have had any safety checks (Estee Lauder, Revlon). All these companies engage in breast cancer cause marketing.
The sad fact is that this is an inherent problem with corporate engagement in fundraising.
More reading
Not even touched on the fact that most research studies focus on white middle class women because those are the ones with buying power for cause-marketing products, or the globalisation of pinkwashing (using the social licence from breast cancer campaigning to operate in places like the middle east by the US after Iraq war).
Film review for Pink Ribbons Inc.
Pink Ribbons Inc. by Dr Susan Love is the book the film is based on
Welcome to Cancerland, an article by Barbara Ehrenreich
Breast Cancer Action do some great work in the US e.g. the Think Before You Pink campaign

big shout-out to Human Rights Watch for screening the film!

This is a good and important subject.
I’m not a big fan of the commercialization of breast cancer research.
I do want to point out one thing though. Breast Cancer went from being one of the most devastating forms of cancer to one of the most curable largely because of the fundraising and publicity brought to this particular form of cancer. Here’s a quick look at the improved survival rates

For local disease, the number of women alive at 10 years rose from 55.0% in the first decade of the study period when radiation therapy was the mainstay of treatment to 86.1% by 1995-2004 (P<0.0001 for trend).
For regional disease with skin or lymph node involvement, 10-year survival improved from a dismal 16.2% to 74.1% over the same period (P<0.0001 for trend).
Even for those who presented with cancer disseminated to distant sites, improvements were seen from 3.3% alive at 10 years among those seen in 1944 to 1954 up to 22.2% by 1995-2004, again a significant trend at P<0.0001.

Other kinds of cancer, such as Ovarian cancer, have not improved so significantly. There hasn’t been a new drug for Ovarian in something like 15 years. 
All the fundraising and activism does have an effect, a serious one. So I’m a little uncomfortable with some of the things quoted above about too much funding going to “cures in the form of pills”. People, those pills are the reason that breast cancer is a survivable disease. Pills like Tamoxifen and Herceptin allow people with the worst forms of breast cancer who might have been given 3-4 months to live to go on living their life for many more months, years, even a decade after that. To the person who now gets to see their 40th birthday or watch their kid graduate high school, that’s a big fucking deal. Actually complaining about that smacks of anti-medical paranoia that I’m really wary of right now.
Here’s the real problem: the whole reason we need fundraising and activism is that the government does not provide enough funding for medical research. If we had the funding structure to do the research that’s really needed for ALL forms of cancer, we wouldn’t need individual funding efforts like Susan Komen with all of the attendant problems that leaving research to corporations and semi-shady foundations brings. 
Other than that I fully agree with the critiques about cause marketing and linking products to breast cancer fundraising.

I NEED TO SEE THIS
silversundancer:

kfadich:

stfuconservatives:

barefootrunaway:

m-03:

bronzebasilisk:

ryunwoofie:

sonneillonv:

autumn-and-eve:

erinsmomma:

How can someone stand behind abortion, when you have a life inside of you that God created for you? How can you say that this life isn’t worth it? If you can’t take care of the baby for whatever circumstances than there is always adoption available to couples who can’t conceive, but still want the joy of being parents. OPEN YOUR EYES! God has bigger plans for us all that we don’t even realize the picture.

Excuse me but it appears your baby is actually upside downDid you take Sex Ed freshman year because babies come out headfirst

Hi, OP!  As someone who was given up for adoption, allow me to call bullshit on your little post there!  You see, when I was adopted, I was a white-skinned, healthy, neurotypical infant, which basically put me at the top of the list, right underneath white-skinned, healthy, neurotypical MALE infants!  There’s only one kind of infant people wanted to adopt more than me!  I was SOOO lucky!  But if you actually bothered to look at the information readily available on the interwebs, you would be aware that the majority of people who are forced to rely on abortion for family planning are poor people and people of color.  Of course, those two demographics intersect, thanks to the institutionalized racism of our society!  Neat huh?!
Of course, even babies of color are not in high demand with couples looking to adopt.  Many who do want to adopt outside their race choose to go outside the country, where laws are less strict and the process is often less expensive.  Of course, most of the infants adopted this way are obtained in unscrupulous fashion, but who cares about that when you’re saving a little Korean or African baby from the horrible fate of growing up in Korea or Africa???  And all those children who have birth defects, are born with diseases or disabilities, or have other issues… WELL.  Who wants to invest that kind of expense and time?  Why would you adopt someone broken, LOLOL?!
Granted, there are some wonderful people who understand the system a little better, and make it a point to try and give POC and disabled children a good home.  But they make up a very small fraction of potential adopters!  This difference in supply and demand leaves a lot of children stuck in the foster system, where their chances of being adopted diminish with every passing year, and their chances of being physically or sexually abused INCREASE!  Isn’t that wonderful?
And of course, we haven’t even talked about the person who is giving birth to the baby!  I know you probably think pregnancy is a wonderful, happy time, and for some people it is, but it is also one of the greatest health risks a person can take. I love my son very much, and from the day I found out I was pregnant with him, I wanted him!  But I also nearly died giving birth to him.  You see, I had pre-eclampsia, the most commonly fatal birth complication in the world.  My blood pressure was 180 over 130!  At twenty-two years old, I was actually headed for a stroke, hah hah!  How funny is that?  And all it took was missing a single pre-natal appointment during which my blood pressure rose to dangerous levels and my body tried to kill both me and my son.  Those seizures sure were fun, as was the emergency c-section performed without anesthetic!  And being chained down while the operation was performed, because I was delirious and wouldn’t stop trying to fight off the doctors, that was a BLAST!  It was great for my husband too, since he almost lost his wife and child in just forty-five minutes.  You can imagine how thrilled he is at the prospect of me ever getting pregnant again.  Babies are certainly cute, but pregnancy can have massive health complications, and I know it’s such a bummer, but they are PERMANENT.  :(  My abdominal muscles never recovered from being hacked through with a scalpel, and the flood of hormones caused by late pregnancy have changed things from heartburn (never used to have it, now, all the time!) to my emotional reactions (I cry when I see pictures of kittens now.  I used to be tough).  These are changes I did not ask for, cannot control, and cannot fix!  And many people go through worse!  I know, right?  Unbelievable, but go look up the word ‘episiotomy’ and then look up ‘birth rape’ and I’m afraid you’ll find some stuff that just isn’t very shiny.  Plus, the studies actually show that people who carry a baby to term, give birth, then give it up for adoption suffer HIGHER rates of post-pregnancy complications like post-partum depression and post-partum psychosis, general depression, and other mental health issues.  Adoption actually isn’t good for the person giving birth at all!
I’m afraid the picture you chose to use there is also pretty disingenuous.  I know, I know, it seems like nitpicking.  I’m not trying to be mean!  :(  But that picture shows a fully developed, viable infant, and most abortions are performed when the fetus isn’t even a fetus - it’s a blastocyst.  That’s just a clump of cells.  Seriously! You can totally find pictures on the interwebs and they’re not even gross, LOLOL!  Later-term abortions are usually performed because of health complications, though some of our intrepid state legislators are trying to change all that!  They care so much about people who are pregnant, you see, that they want to force them to carry dead or dying fetuses inside them until their body either becomes infected while it rots in their tummies (this is called sepsis, and it makes people very sick, and can even kill them!), or forces it out naturally in a gush of blood and fluids!  Isn’t that so caring of them?  I’m so glad they’re around to make those decisions for me!  And if a pregnant person is not allowed to terminate an unviable fetus, in some states, they have to carry the child to term, give birth to it, and then watch it die in their arms because its lungs weren’t developed, or its brain formed outside its skull, or any of a million possible birth defects that will kill you just as quick as lickity-split!  Isn’t that wild?!  Of course, these people go through terrible grief, and as I mentioned, some of them may get sick and die from not being able to abort dead or dying fetuses.  But I guess that’s just A-okay with you, huh?
Basically, I think before you suggest adoption as a universal alternative, you should actually go do some research on adoption.  And before you condemn abortion, you should do some research on abortions - not the stuff your church is giving you, the stuff the real doctors are saying.  Go to Planned Parenthood (if they haven’t all been closed down, ROFLMAO!) and request whatever information they have on the process, the statistics of who has abortions and why… and actually, all of that is on the interwebs!  Isn’t technology AMAZING?
And in closing, since I’ve been asked this question many times and I know it’s coming?  Yes, I realize I am here talking to you because I was not aborted.  But the thing is, if my mother had chosen abortion, I wouldn’t know the difference, so it wouldn’t matter to me.  And if she decided that choice was best for her, then that choice would have been best for her, and I would never want to take that choice away from her.  As it is, since I was given up for adoption, and since I have seen the statistics on how badly people who give their children up for adoption suffer, I have spent much of my adult life worrying about her, whether she’s healthy, whether she’s okay, and feeling that if she did suffer from any of the common post-birth symptoms, it is at least partially my fault, even though she made that decision on her own.  Which is silly, I know, but at some point, all children have to stare down the consequences of their parents’ having them.  For some, that’s poverty.  For others, a life-time of their parents struggling to treat and care for a severe illness or disability.  For others, it’s wondering if their mother ever got over giving them away, and wishing you could reach out and assure her that it’s okay, she doesn’t have to be haunted.
May your birth control never fail!

Pro.

Sonneillonv deserves a mother fucking standing ovation here.

Reblogging because of Sonneillonv. Your google-fu is formidable!

bam.

^ All the commentary, and also: why are pro-life graphics always SO GODDAMN CREEPY???
-Jess

Commentary is perfection.

Just a small thing but why is there no umbilical cord.
loveyourchaos:

They’re Valais Blacknose Sheep from Switzerland.
hamburgerjack:

theanimalblog:

This is how baby giraffes sleep

Who else among us can use their own ass as a pillow? Not me.
GIRAFFE
REALNESS.

» BMA: Black Mental Age [Abagond]

strugglingtobeheard:

crankyskirt:

Cracking the fuck up with this… sad how true it is.

Maybe this will help me be more patient with white folks stunting on some foolish shit - like, “Ju, it’s not their fault, they just have a low BMA and you can’t hold it against them.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Disclaimer: This post is half serious, half parody:

Black Mental Age (BMA) measures human intelligence as compared to black people in America. A person with a BMA of 12, for example, understands the world as well as the average black 12-year-old in America.

It is an idea of mine to get at a difference between black and white commenters on this blog.

For example:

  1. I used to think that everyone over 30 understood that America is no meritocracy, that it is profoundly screwed up. Yet white commenters on this very blog, grown men in their 40s and 50s even, will write in perfect university-level English about how fair and wonderful American society is! Like they are idiot savant 11-year-olds.
  2. Black commenters, even as young as 16, have little trouble understanding my posts while white men, even those over 40, often have serious trouble understanding them. Like there is something wrong with those government tests where whites get such high reading scores.

And yet some of the very same low-BMA whites will talk about how blacks lack intelligence!

Utterly amazing.

IQ: How whites measure intelligence. The trouble is, they write the tests and yet believe shockingly low-BMA stuff like this:

  1. You can trust the police.
  2. You can trust the news.
  3. You can trust crime statistics.
  4. You can trust history books.
  5. You can trust IQ tests.
  6. You can trust employers.
  7. You can trust big business.
  8. You can trust the accounts of white muderers, especially policemen.
  9. Racism is pretty much dead.
  10. It is possible for 40 million people to imagine the same thing at the same time.
  11. American society is more or less fair and just.
  12. People are poor mainly because they are unwilling to work hard and better themselves.
  13. Most poor people are black and most black people are poor.
  14. Television presents a more or less true picture of black people.
  15. Whites do not and did not benefit from slavery.
  16. Whites are completely unaffected by their violent, skinhead past.
  17. People overseas hate America for no good reason.
  18. People say bad things about America or whites only out of hatred.
  19. White Americans are the good guys of history.
Such people are completely unsuited to writing intelligence tests.

In my experience most White Americans have a BMA between 10 and 14. I doubt I am imagining that since black intelligence as measured by the white tests drops after age 14 – what you would expect from tests designed by those with such limited intelligence.

Why does white mental development stop at such an early age?

Possible causes:

  • Genes: Neanderthal genes limit their intelligence.
  • Unchallenging environment: Society is set up to favour them so they have no need to progress beyond a BMA of 14. You know, like how some say the easy living of the tropics limits black intelligence. Like that.
  • Social pathologies: Maybe whites do in fact get beyond 14 like everyone else, but their position in society and self-image requires them to act like they do not understand certain simple things, making them into pathological liars.

why i say so many white people are like giant children. but really it’s kind of like perpetual pre-teens or teenagers.

"

One of the ironies of white racial identity is that white Americans tend to see themselves in non-racial terms, as the norm against which all other groups are compared. This perception of whiteness as “normal” distances all other groups and reinforces the power relationships that have been imbedded in U.S. society since colonial days. Whites regard themselves as “just people” and see only “others” as having race.

For example, in causal discussions and everyday conversations, whites often mention the race of non-whites, even when racial identities are not relevant to the story. For example, a white American might say, “This black guy asked me for directions to city hall,” identifying race even though it plays no particular role in the anecdote. When people are not identified by their race (“This guy asked me for directions to city hall.”), the assumption is that they are white: normal people who need not further description.

This view places whites in a highly privileged status. “Other people are raced, we are just people”…. There is no more powerful position than that of being ‘just’ human. The claim to power is the claim to speak for the commonality of humanity. Raced people can’t do that—they only speak for their own race.

Just as whites tend to be unaware of their racial identity, they also tend to be unaware of the privileges that attend “whiteness.” Sociologist Peggy McIntosh notes that whites (like men) are reluctant to acknowledge their privilege vis-à-vis non-whites (women). This denial is a way of protecting the privilege—if it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t have to be explained, examined, or defended.

"

Joseph F. Healey, Diversity and Society: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender (via humanformat)

is this not the same for all races?
do blacks and asians not say “that white chick is sitting over there.” when referring to a white woman?
or are whites the root of all evil? :\

(via oli-via)

facepalm.gif

(via audiodopexx)

Ugh. This doesn’t make “whites the root of all evil”. It makes white people so used to using race as a qualifier of difference that they tend to do it at all times, especially when dealing with people who are non-white. Whether its about your nice “black” friend, or that lesbian woman down the street, the dominant culture tends to underscore statuses it considers wholly different from itself. The downside to this is that it alienates other groups in the process.

(via invisiblelad)

(via sonofbaldwin)

perrrolike:

#black power tbh