Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
cinnabonbon
cinnabonbon's Journal
cinnabonbon's Journal
February 27, 2014
http://www.dailydot.com/lol/naked-lets-date-user-mom-blackmail/
http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-06-10/woman-solves-unwanted-dick-pic-problem-by-sending-picture-to-mom/
How to deal with unwanted attention in the digital age
I am sure this has already been posted a few times, but I can't find it and the recent posts reminded me of it. You might get a few chuckles out of it, too. 
Warning for blurred out pic of a naked guy!
It's too bad she took her tumblr down, because I remember that she did send the exchange to the guy's mom, despite him trying to bribe her not to.
Edit:
Sarah easily found Trevor’s mother’s contact information via his Facebook profile. She then helpfully forwarded the dick pic to his mom with a note telling her that she ought to be concerned about Trevor’s treatment of women. That was on Friday, and she still hasn’t heard back from his mom, but it’s safe to say that Sarah won’t be hearing from Trevor again.
http://www.dailydot.com/lol/naked-lets-date-user-mom-blackmail/
http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-06-10/woman-solves-unwanted-dick-pic-problem-by-sending-picture-to-mom/
February 16, 2014
from: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/07/12/whites-blacks-apes-in-the-great-chain-of-being/
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/28/irish-apes-tactics-of-de-humanization/
This thread is not to say that humans aren't a part of the "ape family"/hominids. However, calling (and comparing!) certain parts of the human race to apes has very negative historical associations linked to it, and we should all be aware of what we're doing when we're flirting with racist and classist stereotypes.
Whites, Blacks, and Apes in the Great Chain of Being
The predominant colonial theory of race was the great chain of being, the idea that human races could be lined up from most superior to most inferior. That is, God, white people, and then an arrangement of non-white people, with blacks at the bottom.
The theorization of the great chain of being was not just for “science” or “fun.” It was a central tool in justifying efforts to colonize, enslave, and even exterminate people. If it could be established that certain kinds of people were indeed less than, even less than human, then it was acceptable to treat them as such.
This is a “generalizable tactic of oppression,” by the way. During the period of intense anti-Irish sentiment in the U.S. and Britain, the Irish were routinely compared to apes as well.
Connections have been drawn between black people and primates for hundreds of years. Whatever else you want to think about modern instances of this association – the one Wade and her child are suffering now, but also the Obama sock monkey, the Black Lil’ Monkey doll, and a political cartoon targeting Obama – objections are not just paranoia.
This is a “generalizable tactic of oppression,” by the way. During the period of intense anti-Irish sentiment in the U.S. and Britain, the Irish were routinely compared to apes as well.
Connections have been drawn between black people and primates for hundreds of years. Whatever else you want to think about modern instances of this association – the one Wade and her child are suffering now, but also the Obama sock monkey, the Black Lil’ Monkey doll, and a political cartoon targeting Obama – objections are not just paranoia.
from: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/07/12/whites-blacks-apes-in-the-great-chain-of-being/
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/28/irish-apes-tactics-of-de-humanization/
This thread is not to say that humans aren't a part of the "ape family"/hominids. However, calling (and comparing!) certain parts of the human race to apes has very negative historical associations linked to it, and we should all be aware of what we're doing when we're flirting with racist and classist stereotypes.
February 6, 2014
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/02/janet_mock_calls_our_piers_morgans_info-tainment.html
After the show, there was also a fight on twitter where Piers ended up saying that because Mock didn't want to be referred to as "formerly a man" among other things, correcting him was cisphobia. Seriously. It was painful to watch.
The Deadly Logic Behind Piers Morgan’s Awful Interview With Janet Mock
In case you missed it, Janet Mock made an appearance on “Piers Morgan Live” last night to talk about her new memoir “Redefining Realness.” But instead of asking about the actual issues that she lays out in the book, Morgan did what has become sadly predictable of mainstream media when it comes to covering trans communities and focused almost exclusively on Mock’s physical transition.
As you can see when you watch the clip, the on-screen description of Mock was that she “was a boy until 18,” even though she’s identified as a woman since high school. Morgan’s Twitter account then asked its followers, “How would you feel if you found out the woman you are dating was formerly a man?”
It was upsetting to watch for many reasons, but especially because Morgan’s questioning implied there’s an inherent deception involved in being transgender. It’s a logic that says that being transgender is a choice, a costume, a scheme put on to dupe cis men. It’s also the same logic at the core of so-called “trans panic” legal defenses, in which cis men accused of killing trans women have, often successfully, argued in court that they were “provoked” to attack their victims after discovering their biological sex. It’s a warped sense of power cloaked in patriarchy that has dug early graves for women like Gwen Araujo and Angie Zapata, teenagers who were violently killed for being themselves.
As you can see when you watch the clip, the on-screen description of Mock was that she “was a boy until 18,” even though she’s identified as a woman since high school. Morgan’s Twitter account then asked its followers, “How would you feel if you found out the woman you are dating was formerly a man?”
It was upsetting to watch for many reasons, but especially because Morgan’s questioning implied there’s an inherent deception involved in being transgender. It’s a logic that says that being transgender is a choice, a costume, a scheme put on to dupe cis men. It’s also the same logic at the core of so-called “trans panic” legal defenses, in which cis men accused of killing trans women have, often successfully, argued in court that they were “provoked” to attack their victims after discovering their biological sex. It’s a warped sense of power cloaked in patriarchy that has dug early graves for women like Gwen Araujo and Angie Zapata, teenagers who were violently killed for being themselves.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/02/janet_mock_calls_our_piers_morgans_info-tainment.html
After the show, there was also a fight on twitter where Piers ended up saying that because Mock didn't want to be referred to as "formerly a man" among other things, correcting him was cisphobia. Seriously. It was painful to watch.
February 5, 2014
I thought it was a cute look.
From the channel:
Feminist Makeup Tutorial (PARODY)
I thought it was a cute look.
From the channel:
This video is supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek parody on some of society's crazy stereotypes of feminists. it's honestly not supposed to be serious or be taken seriously.
February 5, 2014
Allen and homophobia
No, he's not said anything homophobic as far as I know. 
What I'm talking about is certain DU posts comparing the case (where one of his daughters said he sexually abused her when she was a kid) to homophobia.
Regardless of how you feel about the man, I think that comparison is terribly inappropriate. However, I am having trouble articulating why it bothers me so much. I don't think that a wealthy, straight guy being called "creepy" can be compared to homophobia, but apparently others on this site do.
Any help?
February 1, 2014
As far as I'm concerned, this is the reason why "check your privilege" is a popular tool in certain conversations. In these discussions, women are known to tell men to stop dominating the discussion, and they do it by using that particular term. It has been abused, certainly, but most often it is used to keep a conversation on topic.
It allows women and other minorities to take back fifty percent (or even more!) of the conversation. It is also the reason why "check your privilege" has been so criticized by people who have been told to stop interrupting the conversation.
Language Myth: Women Talk Too Much (and 'Check your privilege')
I just like to talk about this, ironically enough. I am sure these two have been posted here before, but I wanted to hear what you think.
Perceptions and Implications
If social confidence explains the greater contributions of women in some social contexts, it is worth asking why girls in school tend to contribute less than boys. Why should they feel unconfident in the classroom? Here is the answer which one sixteen-year-old gave:
Sometimes I feel like saying that I disagree, that there are other ways of looking at it, but where would that get me? My teacher thinks I’m showing off, and the boys jeer. But if I pretend I don’t understand, it’s very different. The teacher is sympathetic and the boys are helpful. They really respond if they can show YOU how it is done, but there’s nothing but ‘aggro’ if you give any signs of showing THEM how it is done.
Talking in class is often perceived as ‘showing off’, especially if it is girl-talk. Until recently, girls have preferred to keep a low profile rather than attract negative attention.
Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.
If social confidence explains the greater contributions of women in some social contexts, it is worth asking why girls in school tend to contribute less than boys. Why should they feel unconfident in the classroom? Here is the answer which one sixteen-year-old gave:
Sometimes I feel like saying that I disagree, that there are other ways of looking at it, but where would that get me? My teacher thinks I’m showing off, and the boys jeer. But if I pretend I don’t understand, it’s very different. The teacher is sympathetic and the boys are helpful. They really respond if they can show YOU how it is done, but there’s nothing but ‘aggro’ if you give any signs of showing THEM how it is done.
Talking in class is often perceived as ‘showing off’, especially if it is girl-talk. Until recently, girls have preferred to keep a low profile rather than attract negative attention.
Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.
The male tendency to dominate in some classes did not surprise us, since talkativeness studies in general have concluded that men dominate mixed discussion groups everywhere -- both within the classroom and beyond. What did surprise us was the degree to which male domination appeared to depend on gender demographics: when the teacher was male and the students in a particular class were predominantly male, then male students dominated the discussions. In none of the demographic circumstances studied did women students talk as much as men.
Why don't women students talk as much as men? One explanation is that women prove to be extremebly vulnerable to interruption. Numerous studies have demonstrated that in mixed-sex conversations, women are interrupted far more frequently than men are. This was remarkably visible in the Video Lab's sample: the comments of women students often were confined to "bursts" lasting only a few seconds, while male students typically kept on talking until they had finished. Moreover, once interrupted, women sometimes stayed out of the discussion for the remainder of the class hour. Thus there were considerably more one-time contributors among women than men.
http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/prejudice/women/
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/html/icb.topic58474/krupnick.html
Why don't women students talk as much as men? One explanation is that women prove to be extremebly vulnerable to interruption. Numerous studies have demonstrated that in mixed-sex conversations, women are interrupted far more frequently than men are. This was remarkably visible in the Video Lab's sample: the comments of women students often were confined to "bursts" lasting only a few seconds, while male students typically kept on talking until they had finished. Moreover, once interrupted, women sometimes stayed out of the discussion for the remainder of the class hour. Thus there were considerably more one-time contributors among women than men.
http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/prejudice/women/
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/html/icb.topic58474/krupnick.html
As far as I'm concerned, this is the reason why "check your privilege" is a popular tool in certain conversations. In these discussions, women are known to tell men to stop dominating the discussion, and they do it by using that particular term. It has been abused, certainly, but most often it is used to keep a conversation on topic.
It allows women and other minorities to take back fifty percent (or even more!) of the conversation. It is also the reason why "check your privilege" has been so criticized by people who have been told to stop interrupting the conversation.
January 24, 2014
Just a small uplifting article about owning the body you're in. I recommend reading it to the end.
http://katsudon.net/?p=2727
I Only Cut My Hair Because I hate You
This is a reply to one of those obnoxious blog-articles going around where dudes are lamenting the fact that women wear their hair in ways they don't like. I won't be linking to those, because they're misogynistic.
I’ve got my own anecdotes, and one thing I’d point out is that most of the women I know who wear makeup? Don’t do it for guys. They do it because they like how it looks and it makes them feel powerful. It’s like social war paint.
And me? My decision to have short hair has nothing to do with latent masculinity, psychological damage, or a desire to scare the shit out of insecure little boys on the internet. (Though god if I’d known short hair was going to make penises shrivel up and fall off with its mere existence, I would have shaved my head a decade ago.)
And me? My decision to have short hair has nothing to do with latent masculinity, psychological damage, or a desire to scare the shit out of insecure little boys on the internet. (Though god if I’d known short hair was going to make penises shrivel up and fall off with its mere existence, I would have shaved my head a decade ago.)
Maybe that’s why this is so existentially threatening to people who are inclined to pen articles complaining about women and our personal beauty decisions. I didn’t cut my hair because I hate men, or because I needed an outward expression of my deep psychological issues, or because I want to destroy western civilization and replace it with a dystopian gynocracy. This isn’t about them and never has been. No matter how much time I might choose to spend with someone else, when it’s the middle of the night and the monsters are howling on the doorstep, I’m the one who faces them wearing my own skin and in that moment it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks.
I cut my hair because it’s my hair, growing on my head, and I like it that way. And I really couldn’t give less of a shit about outside objections.
I cut my hair because it’s my hair, growing on my head, and I like it that way. And I really couldn’t give less of a shit about outside objections.
Just a small uplifting article about owning the body you're in. I recommend reading it to the end.
http://katsudon.net/?p=2727
January 23, 2014
Moving the Race Conversation Forward
Two-thirds of race-focused media coverage fails to consider how systemic racism factors into the story, instead typically focusing upon racial slurs and other types of personal prejudice and individual-level racism.
We can not have a real conversation on any of the biggest issues that affects us all as individuals if we are not also thinking about the systems involved.
January 22, 2014
A discussion about the b-word
Because after the clusterfuck that happened in GD, I think I need some help here. I think we all agree that it's a slur that is harmful. My predicament lies in the explanations I have to give to people. How do you refer to the slurs in question without asterisking them out? (Like this: b*tch) Is there a way that is more acceptable? I admit that it surprised me just a little, because the places I frequent simply asterix it out if they need to use it, and they consider that an acceptable compromise (although you're supposed to use it as little as possible, obviously.)
But is there a better way to refer to it? Do we just call it the b-word?
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Dec 22, 2013, 07:33 AMNumber of posts: 860