“What I want to talk about is how emotional outbursts typically more associated with men (shouting, expressing anger openly) are given a pass in public discourse in a way that emotional outbursts typically more associated with women (crying, “getting upset”) are stigmatized. I wish to dispel the notion that women are “more emotional.” I don’t think we are. I think that the emotions women stereotypically express are what men call “emotions,” and the emotions that men typically express are somehow considered by men to be something else. This is incorrect. Anger? EMOTION. Hate? EMOTION. Resorting to violence? EMOTIONAL OUTBURST. An irrational need to be correct when all the evidence is against you? Pretty sure that’s an emotion. Resorting to shouting really loudly when you don’t like the other person’s point of view? That’s called “being too emotional to engage in a rational discussion.” Not only do I think men are at least as emotional as women, I think that these stereotypically male emotions are more damaging to rational dialogue than are stereotypically female emotions. A hurt, crying person can still listen, think, and speak. A shouting, angry person? That person is crapping all over meaningful discourse.”
Not only are male outbursts given a pass, they are often placed at the fault of others.
If a white heterosexual male is angry in public, any “other” human will be automatically defaulted as the instigator in the eyes of everyone else. They will be more likely to be coded as undeserving or unworthy.
The safety of being an angry white man.
Also male anger is seen as justified. If women are angry, we’re hysterical, or over-reacting, or our concerns are dismissed until we can calm down. If men are angry, then BY GOD there must be something to get angry about!
I remember in the wake of the Penn State sexual assault scandal when I made the case that Penn State needed their entire football program suspended (the “death penalty” in the NCAA) with the argument that people do not report because they’re worried about hurting the football program, so therefore the consequences of not reporting have to be the total removal of that program. That way you’re actually saving the program by reporting, and endangering it by not.
I made this argument, and a guy I knew told me that I’m wrong because I’m being emotional and I just want vengeance and I’m not thinking rationally. And I kept stating that in fact I’m being super cynical by trying to prevent future cover-ups by threatening the only thing these people seem to care about: their football program. And he kept dismissing me over and over as being emotional and acting purely based on anger and wanting to lash out.
My male friend showed up and repeated the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I made, with the same passion I had (which for me was construed as irrational anger). And the dude agreed and said that made much more sense, and thanked him for giving an actual rational reason why this should be done rather than act on emotion like me.
As a good friend of mine often says: male privilege, it’s a hell of a drug.
Ok Dr. Phil’s wife, Robin, (yes groan, but listen up) has this new app out (iPhone and Android) that’s for people in abusive relationships. It’s called Aspire News and it’s disguised as a regular news app, but when you go to the “Help” section of the app, it leads you to domestic violence resources and also has a “Go Button” that when you press it, if you’re in a compromising situation, alerts local authorities as well as local shelters and starts recording everything that is going on.
Now, if you’re looking up resources on the app and your abuser is near, simply press the X button and it brings you to a random news page. Same goes for the actual foundation site.
My brother is a nerd like I am but he honestly does not give a crap about Captain America and is pretty open that he was his least favorite character in the Avengers movie.
He had literally no interest in watching Cap 2 until we saw the trailer and he saw the Falcon and that what, 10 seconds or so of footage has got him to want to see the movie because he thought he looked cool.
That’s literally how easy representation is.
My auntie Nita has no interest in comic books or genre fiction and is now calling me asking me about Ms. Marvel because she heard the new one is a Muslim and says her daughter is excited.
Like shockingly PEOPLE WHO WEREN’T INTERESTED IN YOUR PRODUCT BEFORE MAY BECOME SO IF YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO INCLUDE THEM.
It is literally that easy and yet somehow the entertainment industry continually messes that up somehow.
Some white people can’t STAND that there’s a word that black folks are allowed to say that they can’t. They feel discriminated against like they’re at the back of the bus. They are angry.
Four hundred years in this country is white people telling black people what they can’t do. ‘You can’t go off the plantation. You can’t keep your religion. You can’t be free. You can’t vote.’ But in 400 years, black folks have asked white people not to do ONE thing: Don’t say that word.
“For years, mental health professionals taught people that they could be psychologically healthy without social support, that “unless you love yourself, no one else will love you.”… The truth is you cannot love yourself unless you have been loved and are loved. The capacity to love cannot be built in isolation.”—Bruce D. Perry, M.D., Ph.D., “The Boy Who Was Raised As A Dog” (via jerryhasabackup)
the moral lesson of wonder woman is that you can be stronger than any living human and literally stop bullets with your arms but there will always be white dudes thinking they’re stronger than you are
HYST note: This post brought out a lot of feels. I’m a brown girl who grew up in a small mostly-white town and can’t remember a time when I didn’t feel exoticized, othered, and intensely aware of how the combination of my race and gender played into every social interaction. Chalk that one up to white dudes (white girls too, sometimes). Yeah, it’s a bummer, but unfortunately my experience isn’t unique – it’s the American WoC story. Luckily, all of this made me angry! – the anger fuelled me to work hard! When my goal of getting into an Ivy League happened and white guy classmates explained it away as “Oh you just got in because you’re a minority and a girl” I got even angrier!
Being angry is rewarding but exhausting, though! I think this is why I could never stop reading Wonder Woman once I started. While I was working relentlessly (and, sometimes it seemed, pointlessly) in campus feminist activism, Diana fought patriarchy and its limiting and annoying constructs about women but she kept so collected and regal while she did it. She inspired me then, and she inspires me now that I’m an angry grad student (except for this insulting WW/SM nonsense, which makes me… you guessed it: ANGRY).
And – here’s the kicker – it wasn’t just Wonder Woman who inspired me; there was a guy in almost every issue who loved her and supported her and thought that she was the bee’s knees in general… and he was a whitedude! WHAT. Steve Trevor is supposed to be a “typical American male,” by the way – he even won a nationwide contest for the Most Typical American Male once – and while I wish that the typical American male was like Steve Trevor, he is nevertheless a great example of the kind of ally that men can be for women. This is a guy who smacks of white cis male privilege; he’s also great at his job, fearless, kind, funny, and doesn’t bat an eyelash when he needs help from good lord a woman. Every once in a while he gets embarrassed about it, but then Diana comes in and is like, “Oh, my poor boo is a product of the patriarchy he subverts, he just needs a little reminder to keep trying.” And then Steve *listens* to her and understands and tries. This is amazing to me. It gives me a lot of hope.
However, if your post was referring to the Steve Trevor from the 2009 Wonder Woman movie, then yikes! That dude was okay for a laugh but he was no Steve Trevor. Pre-Crisis comic book Steve (with a few exceptions in the Silver Age, heh) and rare-cartoon-cameo Steve are the real deal. I like the New52 version of him so far too.
(Sidenote: It’s shocking, but I have met a lot of cool white dudes – also JK about the “shocking” part I realize that they’re not a monolithic entity. And I’m getting plenty of good-natured crap for dedicating a tumblr to a fictional white dude character. But, like I said, Steve makes me hopeful!)
“Was “Girl Power” an attempt at pop and personal transformation or a cynical plan to sell a remarkable amount of dolls? Both, obviously. We live in a world where women get to be the protagonists of adverts far more than of stories: the default way popular culture lets you reach a truly mass female audience is by selling to them. Once the Spice machine got going, there was plenty to sell. But to imagine that the Spice Girls – or any star since – must have unsullied motivation to have positive impact would be to imagine that young girls are a) uncritical idiots and b) not already used to constantly negotiating a world in which every pleasure or statement of independence is someone else’s weapon against them.”—And Popular reaches Wannabe. (via kierongillen)
“Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins to not just tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms.”—Gene Roddenberry (via muttnikk)
Can we PLEASE stop humouring people who don't understand what the words "strong character" mean in a critical context? It's a pointless, derailing argument designed to make enemies of people who are working towards the same goal.
The real problem is not writing too many women who punch dudes but have nothing else, or having too many female characters who cry… the problem is female characters in there simply to fulfill the “girl” role and be sexually appealing to male viewers. That’s why there’s a backlash against “strong” women, because too damned many women are written as aggressive purely because the male writers and producers think a woman who hits things is “hawt.” The problem isn’t that they’re cardboard, a lot of male characters in action movies are a stock type too. The problem is that male characters are there so we can put ourselves in their position and female characters are overwhelmingly there are a damned prize for the male characters and all the viewers living vicariously through them. That is why they’re unsatisfying, no matter what they’re fucking doing.
Fuck “strong” and “weak”, we should be yelling for “identify” over “objectify”.
they would see each other, have a friendly spar, whoever wins, wins, they don’t care, then they see their combined might could make so many people happy, they team up and save kittens, douse fires, give flowers to orphans, bake food for the homeless, and have a jolly good time
because thor and superman aren’t mindless brutes focusing on who is stronger LOL they are both otherworldly lovely beings filled with hope, optimism, and love for humanity of course they’d team up and make people happy
“So, what’s wrong with the generalization that more sex = liberation? It locates sexual liberation in an experience of white heterosexual femininity. It does not take into the account the different experiences of racialization and sexualization of women, queer and trans people of color. For example, while, straight, middle-class women have been stereotyped as pure, asexual virgins, while women of color have been hypersexualized as exotic, erotic beings (see: Hottentot, harem girl, lotus blossom, fiery Latina, squaw, etc.) For racialized people, adopting a sex-positive attitude does not “liberate” them of such stereotypes, in fact, it fuels them further. In addition, the framework of sex-positivity does not offer a critique of capitalism and the way our sexualities are commodified and exploited, preventing the “free expression” of sex, in the favorite words of sex-positive feminists. Sex-positivity is also ahistorical; it does not take into account the ways attitudes about sex are related to histories of colonialism, especially the colonial imposition of gender and sexual norms. None of this is a particularly new way of thinking by the way, many feminists of color have critiqued sex-positivity for similar reasons.”—Shout-outs to counterstorytelling (aka Mushroom Rage) for this thoughtful, wonderful op-ed that spoke so many truths on so many levels. This article is probably the one where topics of feminism, gender, construct, colonialism, culture, and sexuality all intertwine— not just systemically, but personally as well. (via thephantomcatalyst)
This got left in my box by a fanmail (which does not give me an email notification, guys) and its something I support but I don’t think the President can do it. It has to be done state by state somehow.
“…for the contingent out there who sneer at heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman and Captain America, those icons who still, at their core, represent selfless sacrifice for the greater good, and who justify their contempt by saying, oh, it’s so unrealistic, no one would ever be so noble… grow up. Seriously. Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other. If you truly cannot accept a story where someone does the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, that says far more about who you are than these characters.”—
Looks like this essay was needed, so I went ahead and did it. Not sure I said everything I wanted to say, but I tried.
So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly. They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.
God, what a Mary Sue.
I just described Batman.
Wish fulfillment characters have been around since the beginning of time. The good guys tend to win, get the girl and have everything fall into place for them. It’s only when women started doing it that it became a problem.
Despite the stereotype that science fiction is for men, women have been deeply involved in the genre for decades, and their presence in many aspects of science fiction has been on the rise for just as long, particularly once Star Trek came on the scene. Star Trek, despite some of the obvious sexism of the original series, has done quite a bit to inspire female fans. During the 1960’s and the feminist movement at that time, Trek empowered women. Today, many women credit their professional careers in the sciences, entertainment, medicine, the military, and more with having been influenced in some way by Star Trek. Women were also part of the original driving force behind saving the original series and continue to join the fandom at an increasing rate.
I recognize the power of silence as a tool of protest; although I suspect that much of its power is based on physical presence or other means of making palpable what’s absent in ways that are difficult to recreate on a platform like Twitter.
I also recognize the stark and critical difference between being silenced and choosing to be silent.
I do not condemn anyone who participates in #twittersilence. I celebrate you for taking action.
I stand in solidarity with #twittersilence.
But I am not going to be part of it.
I don’t want to be silent.
Not in a context defined by peers harassed and threatened and chased away from speaking their truths.
I don’t want to be silent; or, rather, when I am silent, I want my silence to be in juxtaposition to something other than attempts to silence me and people like me.
Not when men accuse a panel of female actresses who spend an hour discussing their experiences and goals of “talking too much.”
Not when threats of violence are considered an acceptable way to express dissent.
Not when calls for civility are met with charges of censorship.
Not when I go to work every day in industries where women are already by and large invisible or made invisible or misgendered or stripped of their credit or assumed to have gotten where they are on the coattails of their male partners.
Not when harassment and outright assault are dismissed with a wink and a slap on the wrist, until victims stop seeing any point to calling out wrongs.
Not when standards are determined by people upon whose lives and experiences they will have no impact.
I’m tired of silence.
I’m choking on silence.
I’m suffocating in a vacuum of voices driven away, exhausted pushing against the hostile tide. Of the women who left. Of the women who took a look around and decided not even to try. Of women who shouted out and grew hoarse yelling from the margins while movements and blocs surged on, oblivious to a multitude of intersections.
I’m tired of speaking up feeling like an obligation, because there are things that otherwise will not be said, or will not be heard. I’m tired of watching every word because we are so few of that every sentence stands for something larger.
I’m tired of a world where the only options are fighting for every foothold and standing still.
There’s an Emma Goldman quote I love deeply, likely the source of the apocryphal line about dancing and revolutions: "I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody’s right to beautiful, radiant things."
Silence is the breeding ground of injustice. It prevents us from organizing, from finding solidarity in shared experiences. It keeps us isolated, trapped in miserable orbit of forces larger than we.
I am sick with silence. We are all sick with silence.
I remember watching #1reasonwhy build momentum; months later, I’m still watching its ripples spread. It gave collective voice to decades of frustration and replaced isolation and marginalization with connection and collective action. It was not the positive activism of #1reasonmentors and #1reasontobe—but it laid the foundation from which they were able to rise.
If we want change, we need the power and platform to say that the status quo is wrong.
I stand in solidarity with #twittersilence.
But if you’re looking for me this weekend, you can find me in #twitternoise.
This articulates my thoughts on #twittersilence really well, and why it’s really important that women and other marginalized groups continue to not be silent in the face of people trying to get us to shut up.
Agreed, this is why I will not bloody well be silent. Although I amend some of its sentiment. I can’t, in all honesty, stand in solidarity with everyone involved in #twittersilence. A great many of the women who are doing it because they want to make a statement and draw media attention? Sure. But I saw Caitlin Moran’s tweets when it was first proposed. She didn’t just want to protest harrassment, she wanted all the ‘nice’ people to leave Twitter. She condemned anyone who stayed. She’s also pretty anti-trans and has said some truly shocking things in her time.
I also object to her attempts to claim leadership for modern feminism. She doesn’t stand for me. Her feminism is one that denies me my lack of ‘natural’ femininity. This is not the first time she has advocated protest by passivity. I have heard her argue in interviews that women should ‘leave Have I Got News For You’ to the men, because she finds it too competitive, and therefore thinks it is not naturally suited to women. I‘ve written before on how I think it’s wrong to blame the nature of women as ‘unsuitable’ or ‘uncompetitive’ for gender disparity on panel shows. I don’t blame Caitlin Moran for not wanting to go on a show that makes her uncomfortable. What I object to is her saying that all women are like her and women are inherently unable to deal with that environment. Tell that to the women, like Victoria Coren, who school Ian et al on their sexism and still get invited back.
I do not think that passive protest is inherently bad. What I dislike is Caitlin Moran advocating passive protest as the only appropriate way for women to protest. I also dislike that many of the people who she thinks of as ‘not nice’ are the women who won’t sit down and shut up and passively protest the patriarchy in a ladylike fashion. Women like Stavvers. Whilst I’m quite glad I’ve never been on the other end of Stavvers’s ire, that doesn’t mean her ire is invalid. In fact, I wish I had the mental energy to be as bolshy as she is in the name of her cause. Somehow there seems to have been a generation of women I missed by only about five years that were less ground down by the patriarchy. I used to be angry and vocal like that, but the lack of support from anyone around me eventually drove me into passivity. But women like Stavvers did not. And I think that’s down to the Internet. The Internet being there and waiting for them when they hit teenage years, whereas it was really in its infancy when I hit mine. They hit the Internet and social media and found the support for feminist issues that was lacking for me. They connected with other issues and got angry about them too and built solidarity together. The idea of women withdrawing from social media partially in the name of silencing these women is abhorent to me.
So, if you’re taking part in #twittersilence and you’re not about silencing women or supporting Caitlin Moran, then yeah, I can be in solidaity with you. But I will not be part of a feminist movement that wants to silence these women for not being passive enough. I have already had that kind of energy beaten out of me. I will not be a part of perpetuating the silence.
Reblogging for the additional great commentary on some of the problematic elements behind #twittersilence and people who think ALL women should participate or they are being bad.
(Also, I didn’t know Caitlin Moran was one of the people behind this. Ugh. >_< )
So it’s been a little more than a week since my glorious return from the San Diego International Comic Convention, where I saw cool things, met cool people, and learned that “Hell” is another word for “being on the SDCC exhibit floor in a wheelchair.” I also contracted a horrific cold, and have been fighting my way back to the semblance of health, which is why my relative radio silence on the subject. But that’s neither here nor there: that’s just framework and excuses. Here’s what happened.
Leading up to SDCC, basically every woman I talked to expressed the fear of being “cred checked” at least once. The fake geek girl may not be a real thing, but her shadow is long, and since people started claiming to have seen her, the rest of us have been accused of being her with increasing frequency. She is the geek urban legend, the prowling, predatory female who’s just there to take up precious space/time/swag with her girly girlish girliness, and she’s like The Thing From Outer Space—a creature with no face and every face, AT THE SAME TIME.
I attended SDCC and similar shows for years before anyone said “Gasp! Some of these geek girls ARE TOTALLY FAKE!” and I started getting my geek credentials checked. Since that began, I have been forced to defend my knowledge of horror movies, the X-Men, zombie literature, the Resident Evil franchise, Doctor Who, and My Little Pony.
Let’s pause a moment and just think about that. Men—adult men—have asked me to defend my knowledge of and right to be a fan of My Little motherfucking Pony. My first fandom, the fandom that is arguably responsible for getting me into epic fantasy (not kidding), the franchise that I have publicly credited with teaching me how to plot long-term. A franchise that was, at least originally, aimed exclusively at little girls who enjoyed ponies and hair-play. I think that all fandoms should be for everyone, and I love that My Little Pony has finally found a male audience, but are you kidding here? Are you seriously telling me that the second men discover something I have loved since I was four years old, I suddenly have to pass trivia exams to keep considering myself a fan? Because if that’s the way things are going, I want to hear the Sea Pony song right fucking now.
Most of the female fans I know have expressed concern about this credential checking, in part because who the fuck wants to have to take a quiz when you’re standing in line waiting to get Chris Claremont’s autograph? I mean, really. And there’s always the possibility that you’ll fail the exam, and a) many of us have deep-seated test anxiety, courtesy of the American school system, and b) no one likes being bullied. Telling me I’m not a real geek because I can’t name the members of the Justice League (spoiler: I can’t, I don’t read DC) is bullying. It’s offensive and it’s upsetting and it leaves me feeling like a faker, even when I’m not. Even when I’m demonstratively not.
And this “you’re a fake, you have no right to be here” routine is almost universally directed at women. I see these women in these incredible costumes that took hours to make and will cause chafing and shin splits and lots of other discomforts, and then I see them getting mocked for being “fake” by men in jeans and hero logo T-shirts. Captain America probably doesn’t like you making fun of women, good sir. Just saying.
Then, this year, I saw something wonderful. I was crossing the floor with Amy when we encountered a tall blonde dressed as Emma Frost. I will always stop and admire a good Emma—it’s in my genes—so we paused to study her costume and tell her how amazing she looked. She saw the name on my badge and lit up.
"I was hoping to run into you!" she said. “I remembered that you love Emma!"
One of my fans dressed as Emma Frost and she did it <i>for me</i>.
I have never felt so much like a rock star.
We stayed and chatted with her—because let’s face it, you dress up as Emma Frost to make me happy, you have damn well earned some chatting with—and she confessed that she had been cred checked not long before. “I said Emma was both the White Queen and the Black Queen,” she said. “Was that right?” I started explaining the Dark X-Men. While we were doing that, a man with a camera came up and started taking her picture without asking permission. She stopped talking to us, turned her body slightly away from him, held up her hand, and said, “You can’t take my picture unless you can tell me who I am.”
She was dressed as a very iconic Emma: all in white, with the half-cape connected to a semi-corset top, white boots, and a white “X” logo on her belt. She had small snowflakes on her collarbones, representing Emma’s transformation. She had the white choker. She had the blue lipstick. Basically, if you have any familiarity with Marvel, you would recognize her, and since that version of Emma has been on literally hundreds of comic book covers in the past five years, even most DC readers should have recognized her.
"Storm?" guessed the man.
All three of us laughed, but uncomfortably, like we were discovering a terrible secret. And while Amy and I stood there, this happened four more times: the unsolicited pictures, the refusal, the incorrect guess. Only three of the men actually stopped taking pictures when told to.
As women, we are afraid of being unmasked as somehow “not geeky enough.” Meanwhile, these men, who were clearly just trying to take pictures of a scantily clad woman, not pictures of an awesome costume, can’t identify one of the most iconic figures from one of the largest publishers.
I’ve been saying for a while that the “fake geek girl” thing was a form of harassment: a way of making sure that women in fandom don’t “forget their place.” But this, more than anything, drove home to me just how big of a double standard it is. As women, we’re expected to know enough to “earn our spot,” but not so much that we seem like know-it-alls; we’re supposed to add attractive eye candy to the proceedings, but shouldn’t expect men to stop taking our pictures when asked; we’re supposed to worry about not seeming geeky enough, while never worrying whether the men around us could pass those same tests. The mere fact of their maleness is sufficient.
There was something beautiful about seeing the fake geek girl check flipped back in the other direction, but there was also something profoundly sad about it, because it illustrated just how deep this divide is growing. We’re all geeks. We need to have respect for each other, in all ways—no taking pictures without asking, no shouting “Emma!” at a cosplayer and then saying “See? I told you she knew who she was dressed as” when she turns around. Just no.
It needs to stop.
(And if you were that Emma, drop me a line, hey? I never did get your name, and you were awesome.)
1. Linguistic Intelligence: the capacity to use language to express what’s on your mind and to understand other people. Any kind of writer, orator, speaker, lawyer, or other person for whom language is an important stock in trade has great linguistic intelligence.
2. Logical/Mathematical Intelligence: the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of causal system, the way a scientist or a logician does; or to manipulate numbers, quantities, and operations, the way a mathematician does.
3. Musical Rhythmic Intelligence: the capacity to think in music; to be able to hear patterns, recognize them, and perhaps manipulate them. People who have strong musical intelligence don’t just remember music easily, they can’t get it out of their minds, it’s so omnipresent.
4. Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence: the capacity to use your whole body or parts of your body (your hands, your fingers, your arms) to solve a problem, make something, or put on some kind of production. The most evident examples are people in athletics or the performing arts, particularly dancing or acting.
5. Spatial Intelligence: the ability to represent the spatial world internally in your mind — the way a sailor or airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world, or the way a chess player or sculptor represents a more circumscribed spatial world. Spatial intelligence can be used in the arts or in the sciences.
6. Naturalist Intelligence: the ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) and sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations). This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef.
7. Intrapersonal Intelligence: having an understanding of yourself; knowing who you are, what you can do, what you want to do, how you react to things, which things to avoid, and which things to gravitate toward. We are drawn to people who have a good understanding of themselves. They tend to know what they can and can’t do, and to know where to go if they need help.
8. Interpersonal Intelligence: the ability to understand other people. It’s an ability we all need, but is especially important for teachers, clinicians, salespersons, or politicians — anybody who deals with other people.
9. Existential Intelligence: the ability and proclivity to pose (and ponder) questions about life, death, and ultimate realities.
Howard Gardner’s seminal Theory of Multiple Intelligences, originally published in 1983, which revolutionized psychology and education by offering a more dimensional conception of intelligence than the narrow measures traditional standardized tests had long applied. (via thalamtnafsee)
This book is a hugely interesting read — it’s very academic in places, but worth slogging through. People learn in so many different ways, and in different combinations of all the above “intelligences”.
Corporate culture doesn’t value all these intelligences, nor do they care. But all these intelligences are important.
Dan Didio: *shoots his company’s flagship franchise in the foot by breaking up Lois Lane and Clark Kent because he wants to get Superman and Wonder Woman together*
Joe Quesada: *shoots his company’s flagship franchise in the foot by breaking up Mary Jane Watson and Peter Parker because he wants to get Spider-Man together with his weird Gwen-Stacy-wannabe-Mary-Sue*
I have to double-check on the Spider-man one (I thought he was dating MJ again?) but yeah on the first.
Between Sen. Wendy Davis’s filibuster and the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, this week has been a strangely successful one for progressives in Texas. However, there was a ruling before either of these realities that girded conservatives and tea partiers in the state. On Tuesday, the SCOTUS ruled in a 5-4 decision that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act should be excised, and that Congress “may draft another formula based on current conditions.” This section, which contained a formula forcing nine states and assorted counties to pre-clear electoral changes with the federal government, was one of the main pillars of the VRA, providing federal oversight to areas that had used traditionally discriminatory practices to prevent minorities from voting.
Texas, as you may have heard, was one of the nine states subjected to such federal pre-clearance, most recently with its attempts at voter ID legislation. The new regulations were the greatest accomplishment of the 2011 Legislative Session, but afederal court used the VRA to bar the legislation from implementation. Now, following the SCOTUS’s new ruling, Attorney General Greg Abbott says he will be pushing for implementation as soon as possible. “With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” he said on Tuesday.
Indeed, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety, applications for the new Election Identification Certificates (EIC) were available yesterday, following Abbott’s announcement. The EIC is now one of six options of state-approved forms of ID the state will require citizens to present while voting.
And while the process of obtaining an EIC is relatively straightforward — the application is short, and you are presented with a receipt upon same-day approval that allows you to vote — the burdens that led the federal court to its earlier decision remain.
"The regulations remained in basically suspended animation," Logan Churchwell, the public relations director with pro-regulation True the Vote, told the Houston Press. “We see this [ruling] as moving forward for our republic, and as a celebrated decision.”
As currently structured, citizens will need to present both proof of US citizenship and identification in order to obtain an EIC. While the card itself is free, applicants would need to pay up to $22 for a birth certificate as one of the options for obtaining an EIC.
Churchwell disputed the notion that the cost should preclude anyone from obtaining the identification card.
"It’s important not to zero in on the birth certificate aspect, as that’s a very narrow interpretation of what you need for ID," Churchwell told the Press. “That’s just too narrow of a reality.”
However, other issues stand even more starkly. According to Katherine Cesinger, spokeswoman for TxDPS, citizens will need to apply for EICs at a TxDPS drivers license office. There is no option for a mail-in application. You must show up, in person, to obtain an EIC.
But per the Press’s calculations, there are 70 counties within Texas that do not provide such offices. From Irion and Crockett Counties in Central Texas to La Salle and Duvall Counties in South Texas, TxDPS’s website shows that nearly 30 percent of Texas counties do not provide the necessary offices at which residents will have to arrive if they want to pick up an EIC.
A raft of other uncertainties remain. Cesinger said she didn’t know how many Texans would apply for the new cards or how many would need them. “There are no projections for either of those,” she said.
She also said she was unsure as to how long it would take to receive the EIC following an application, or what kind of outreach programs, if any, her department would use to educate Texans as to the new regulations.
“The engineers at NASA, in their infinite wisdom, decided that woman astronauts would want makeup - so they designed a makeup kit. A makeup kit brought to you by NASA engineers. You can just imagine the discussions amongst the predominantly male engineers about what should go in a makeup kit.”—Astronaut Sally Ride (ESA Bulletin 154, pg 8)
I’ve had multiple requests from people to make this post rebloggable. To be honest, I wasn’t even sure I was going to bother because continuing to talk about this is just so darn exhausting at this point. It’s very easy to feel like, “What’s the point?” When it comes to DC Comics and issues of gender…I think we are all feeling more than a little drained, tired and apathetic at this point in time. It’s tough to even find the energy to have the conversation because no matter what we do or say there are always people there ready to shout us down, tell us to be quiet and silence us. I know some really brilliant women who just flat out don’t have the strength to engage anymore and frankly, I’m nearing that point myself.
I want to make something very clear though: The writer of the the new Superman/Wonder Woman book, Charles Soule is a nice man and a good writer who was hired to do a job. I don’t particularly agree with some of the things he has said in his recent blog post (in fact, I think he’s missing some really key points) but there are ways to discuss these things with him and others while being civil. Does that mean you can’t debate? Argue? Challenge? Of course you can. But if you are going to engage with this man please keep that in mind. You can challenge and you can disagree but cursing at this man is something I want no part of. If you link my post to him with curse words, I want nothing to do with you.
You know, a few months ago this dude friend of mine showed up to hang out with me all dejected. Over a couple of drinks he explained his long face — earlier that night, he’d been walking down the street behind this really cute girl, and when she looked back at him over her shoulder, he thought it was in interest and smiled at her. Now, this guy is tall and skinny, can most commonly be found in glasses and t-shirts scrawled across with math jokes, is kind to animals, considers himself a feminist. What he doesn’t consider himself is threatening, so he was surprised, confused, and even hurt by what happened next: the girl in front of him responding to his called greeting of, “Nice skirt,” by taking off down the darkened street in a dead run.
“Yeah,” I said, “she probably thought you were going to rape her.”
“But that’s not fair,” he said. “I’m a good person; I’d never rape anyone! How could she think that? She doesn’t even know me.”
Out here in the wilds of the internet, I often find myself making arguments about shit like feminism and rape culture unilaterally. For one thing, there’s so much (like, so much) out there arguing unilaterally against this shit that I feel it’s necessary; for another thing, ‘round these parts there’s a lot of people jumping to hostility when it’s painfully clear they don’t have a handle on all the facts. But I’m more lenient with the people in my real life, especially dudes like the one mentioned above. I’m willing to extend to them a patience that I wouldn’t with strangers on the internet, because they matter to me, and it matters to me that they understand. So when my friend sat there that night, whining over his beer and responding to my attempted explanations with, “But I’d love it if a girl smiled at me on the street, or even catcalled at me! Fuck, even if a dude did it, I’d be flattered,” I decided to spend some time thinking about how to clear things up for him. It took awhile, but I finally came up with a metaphor to get the job done: