an advert for an event that i saw on facebook:

( Read more... )

+++

uhhm. disgusting. racist. bullshit.
i saw the event via my fb friends' feed because one of my "friends" is attending. i commented on this "activity" the following:
"ohhh! white privilege FTW!" and he sent me a chat message:
"i'm sure there will be black people there too."
i then proceeded to call him ignorant and his little white boy briefs got all bunched up and he started getting all huffy and defensive because i was "assuming that [he] is ignorant."

AGHHHHHHHHHHH.

+++

factors which make this even grosser:
- this event is occurring in ybor city, fl, which is a vastly gentrified neighborhood historically populated by POC. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ybor_City]
- during the weekends, ybor is generally overrun on the weekend by tourists and hipsters who are clubbing. as a result, the city of tampa hires tons of cops to patrol the "crime" in the neighborhood - and generally targets the folks who live there as opposed to the drunk yuppies who cause a ruckus.
- the event flyer features the artist list on a bottle of malt liquor in a brown paper bag. - the brown paper bag is meant to look like a holiday gift, with a tag wrapped around it. it's addressed to "your ghetto ass."

see?

( Read more... )

what should i do about this / if anything? seriously, this is not ok.
does anyone who has a fb account want to RSVP to attend the event so that they can post on the page about how this shit is NOT ok?

does anyone care to join me in emailing the event management for those who are putting this event together?

( contact info as follows )

ew.

I'm going to keep this really short and really sweet.

This is NOT a debate space. When someone says something that violates the rules, makes the space feel unsafe, or bothers you, PLEASE email the mod team. DON'T argue with them. Its rude to the op, its rude to other commenters, and it is not the purpose of this space. This space functions best as catharsis, not as further frustration. This is why you have a mod team, we are here to maintain the integrity of this space for all of you, but we can't be here every second. We will find issues a great deal faster if you bring them to us, and then we can prevent them from turning into 100 comment clusterfucks.



Thank you, I will now step down from my soapbox and let you all go back to your regularly scheduled rages.

To be honest, I'm feeling a little-- a lot, actually-- queasy after having read this but I need to know that this poster-- BostonIan-- will not get away with having posted one of the most disgusting arguments in favour of the subjugation of women I have ever read in a forum that's made up of mostly intelligent people. It's a long post and there are many pages following it, so I'll just give you guys the link and then post a few choice excerpts here.

From BostonIan:
"Now, reality, according to me: The role and function of women in a population is to build the human, the flesh, the animal. They birth every the population, raise it, feed it, tend to its needs, install the feelings, and bind it together. That is the purpose of their emotions, the oxytocin, the estrogen, the endless chatting and empathetic problem resolution. Neither sex can exist without the other, but we are not equal.
    In their natural environment, men are the leaders of society. In history, we are the kings, lawmakers, shamans, chiefs, judges, politicians, generals, lieutenants, captains, religious leaders, cult-leaders, business owners, scientists, God Himself. We've built every building, fought every war, explored every land, written every rule. What we consider a civilization is us. "

Later on, in response to an argument about historical perspective by a poster called eternaltriangle:

"You're arguing at the margins, with the tactic of adding up a lot of margins to fill a paragraph.

An ancient Chinese tribe had woman leaders, while the majority of all tribes and civilizations had male leaders.
Viking women fought in battle, what gender did most of the fighting in most tribes?
Some British women wrote books, what gender wrote most of the books? Define a "great amount", give a percentage."

Notice how BostonIan conveniently forgets to mention that most women (including wealthy, privileged ones) were illiterate, uneducated and confined to the home because they were forced into prepubescent and pubescent marriages where they were raped by older men and became pregnant and confined to the home at young ages? Does that sound like an ideal environment for inspiring excellence? When many other posters challenge his ideas, he defends them with what "smells," (to use his own words) like bullshit and denial of reality.

"Firstly, the "less encouraged to do well in say, the sciences" smells like propaganda, along with the idea that encouragement supersedes inherent qualities. Prove that women are systematically less encouraged to succeed in science, and that the encouragement itself could dramatically affect academic performance and self-selection." 

View the entire thread here: http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=16833

David Starkey says history has been "feminised". Among other things, he posits that Henry VIII was "emotionally incontinent" because he was raised surrounded by women, that Elizabeth I's status as a female icon is "ludicrous" ("During Victorian times her conduct was regarded as "perfectly deplorable", he added." Gee, maybe because the Victorians were repressed as all getout?), that seeing historical women as "power players" is falsification, and that all this is to blame on the female historians who write about women.

Here, have a clue: almost all of Henry's reign was shaped BY THE WOMEN IN HIS LIFE. The Reformation and the break with Rome? Anne Boleyn, and later Katherine Parr. The tensions with Spain? Catherine of Aragon. The Pilgrimage of Grace? Jane Seymour. So maybe they didn't sit at diplomatic tables or sign declarations of war, but they were every bit as important as the man himself, if not more. Henry was a spoiled brat, and that wasn't the fault of the women who raised him. Mature people suck it up and deal, and the fact that he was maturity-challenged was his fault, and no one else's. And as for Elizabeth I, if it weren't for her, you'd be speaking Spanish right about now.

There's nothing wrong with appreciating and celebrating the female leaders of history. Doing so is a way to reclaim our own power, and that of people who have been marginalised by male historians. And as for female historians writing women, does that apply to men only writing about men? If so, I suppose I should chuck all your books about Elizabeth I and Henry's wives. Clearly you can't write the opposite gender- I mean, if you want to write about someone, you should at least have some respect for them.

Dear everyone who has ever uttered this phrase in the existance of time, in any variation in any language,

Humor is not an absolute defense.

Racist is racist.
Mysognist is mysognist.
Homphobic is homophobic.
Biphobic is biphobic.
Transphobic is transphobic.
Ableism is ableism.

Etc, etc, etc. (Here you should think of The King and I.)

Signed,
The rest of the world.