It was never about the guns. Before guns, there were crossbows and swords and spears and clubs and the force of the human body. Every one of them has the capacity to do the same thing: kill. It never mattered what weapon was used. Obviously some were more expedient and effective than others in completing the desired task, but the task would be completed regardless of the method. As the saying goes, guns don't kill people--people kill people.
The gun that shot Michael Brown is not responsible for his murder. The person whose wretched fingers curled around the trigger and pulled--he is responsible, and he alone. Well, if he didn't have a gun in the first place... Yes, this is true. If Darren Wilson was not in possession of firearms at the time (he was also carrying mace, but found an unarmed teenager too much of an imminent threat to his precious life to use something as harmless as mace), perhaps Michael would not have died by Wilson's gun shot that day. But if not then, it would have been a different time, place, and scenario. The next Darren Wilson wouldn't even use a gun. Just his own two arms. He would employ an illegal chokehold. The murderous hands would belong to Daniel Pantaleo, closing in around the neck of Eric Garner.
It was never about the weapon.
It should have at least been about the evidence. It should have at least been about the laws that are so often lauded by our government, praised as the pillars of our free country. It should have been about a fair trial. And an unbiased jury. It should have been about the truth. But it was not.
Even when the murder of Eric Garner was filmed, which is the closest we can get to witnessing something firsthand, it meant nothing. Not even when the chokehold used was illegal in its own right, independent of the fact that its use resulted in death. Not even an indictment. What happened to the law about when you kill a person, you have to face the consequences? Oh, right, I forgot. When they wrote "person," it was understood that it was open to interpretation. The definition of "person" was deemed to be at the discretion of the perpetrator. When Darren Wilson shot Michael's surrendered, unarmed body, he did not see a person. He saw a "demon." Well, there you have it. These laws very clearly refer to HUMANS ONLY. Demonic law is a whole other system. You'll have to consult the Grand Jury of the Underworld.
It was never about the guns or the body cameras or the laws. It is about the inability of some to recognize others as fellow human beings, comrades in the slug race to the abyss. This inability is a disease of the mind, a very serious, very dangerous, often lethal flaw. Racism is not an opinion. Opinions are only valid when there is more than one side of an issue. Black people are people. That is a fact. Any "belief" insinuating otherwise is not an opinion--it is a direct act of violence. To say that Black lives do not matter is not only a direct act of violence, it is an act of genocide. The words themselves do not literally kill Black people, the same way guns do not literally kill people. But the words are a result of a deeply, dangerously, horrifyingly, blatantly racist society. This world breeds racist people, who then perpetuate the "idea" that Black people are somehow less than, that they are not people, that their lives have no value or worth, that they are disposable. It does not matter if you never raise a hand or a gun to a Black person--if you think their lives do not matter as much as yours, you are committing genocide. You are contributing to the erasure and execution of a targeted group of people.
I am not going to argue why racism is wrong (to say the least), or say "we all bleed red" to try to justify the worth of Black peoples' lives. Not only would it be degrading, but they have told you themselves, a million times. They are alive every day, fighting back, proving their worth again and again, more than anyone should ever have to.
Do not blame the guns or the laws. Do not jump for joy when three hundred million dollars are going to be spent on body cameras that will film police brutality that has already been caught on camera and deemed useless evidence. Blame the people. Blame the society. And then go out there, and fucking change it.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
"Fucking ridiculous I even have to WRITE this shit"
[In light of some really horrible tweets posted to the @Louis_Tomlinson Twitter account, my cousin Emma wrote an essay responding to this.]
I don’t believe Louis Tomlinson is a
homophobe.
If you’re arriving late to this
party, or don’t care at all about One Direction (why do you not
care about One Direction? Love yourself, listen to their music.),
allow me to fill you in. Sunday November 2nd, 2014 saw an interview of Harry Styles and Liam Payne posted online by ODE. In
this interview, Harry and Liam are asked what traits they look for in
a girl. Liam responds with a cheeky, “Female, it’s a good trait.”
Harry then replied, with a grin, “not that important.” This, of course, fueled massive
speculation about Harry’s sexuality, but that's nothing new.
About a week later, fellow 1D member
Louis Tomlinson was photographed at the X-Factor studios wearing a
shirt with the rainbow Apple logo on it – a logo which had recently
been used as a symbol of support for Apple CEO Tim Cook, who a few
days prior had come out as gay. Yes, it is possible that Louis
just liked the old Apple logo and pays no attention to recent events
and it’s all a coincidence. But do you really think that’s the
case?
Enter the Sunday November
9th, 2014 article in The Independent: “Louis Tomlinson supports gay Apple CEO Time Cook – days after Harry Styles’ comments on gender and sexuality.” Nowhere in this article does it speculate or
even mention Louis’s sexuality; it praises his support of the
LGBTQA+ community and reminds us of Harry’s comments the week
before. That is literally all.
And yet, come Monday November 10th,
2014, a tweet was posted to Louis’s Twitter account to the writer
of the article: “The fact that you work for such a ‘credible’
paper and you would talk such rubbish is laughable. I am in fact
straight.” And then a few minutes later: “Fucking ridiculous I
even have to tweet that shit !”
I read those tweets and my heart
dropped into my stomach.
You could tell me, “Emma, it’s a
harmless comment, it’s a celebrity defending their sexuality! No
big deal, you’re overreacting!” But I’m not. And the countless
other queer 1D fans who were sickened and hurt by this are not
overreacting either.
First off, nowhere in the article does
anyone insinuate anything about Louis’s sexuality. It is an
overwhelmingly positive piece about his support of the LGBTQA+
community. When I saw those photos of his shirt the
other day, I was beyond thrilled. To have such open support of
someone like me on a celebrity of that status when so much of the
world is constantly telling me and people like me that we’re wrong
for existing, it’s not a feeling I can describe. It was incredibly
important.
And then, to have that all followed up
by these tweets that lash out at someone who dares to equate his
wearing a t-shirt as support, that call his alleged support of
non-heterosexual people “rubbish,” I can’t describe how that
feels either. Countless posts are going around social media right now
of One Direction fans supporting each other and offering an ear to listen or a
shoulder to cry on after these comments. The One Direction fan base is
primarily young women, with a large subset of those young fans being
non-heterosexual. Having one of the people we love and support
aggressively trying to distance himself from our community in such a
blatant way does nothing to support these young women in their
journey to finding and accepting themselves. It doesn’t matter to
me in the slightest how Louis Tomlinson identifies; what matters to
me is the hundreds of thousands of young people who see what gets
posted to that Twitter account, and how irresponsible it is to use
that kind of platform to be so rude and aggressive about supporting
LGBTAQ+ people.
But I don’t believe Louis Tomlinson
is a homophobe. I’ve seen enough interviews and heard enough
firsthand fan accounts of what he’s like to not believe for a
second that he wrote those tweets. [Note from Odelia: Louis has had countless opportunities to dispel actual rumors surrounding his sexuality, especially yesterday during the livestream when he was asked several times about the "oddest rumors" he's heard about himself, and could've also talked about his girlfriend Eleanor when he was prompted (twice), but he didn't.] But I believe someone on his team
wants us to think he did, and I think that person or those people
don’t care about non-heterosexual 1D fans or people in general. And
to be honest, I couldn’t be less surprised, but I also couldn’t
be more disappointed.
Queer One Direction fans shouldn’t be
made to feel like less valuable members of the family, just as all
queer people should not be made to feel less important than their
heterosexual peers. Whether this was a horribly miscalculated PR move
or I drastically misread Louis’s character and it actually was him
tweeting those things, an apology and a shift in views is more than
necessary. Being rumored to be gay or bisexual or trans or asexual or
pansexual or anything not cis-heterosexual is not something people
need to defend themselves against, celebrity or not. It’s almost
2015, friends; queer people are everywhere, and it’s time to stop
treating us like we’re less worthy of your respect because of who
we are.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Not That Important
Some people are very confused when I tell them that I love One Direction. It doesn't quite fit my persona: the radical trans-feminist-anarchist-vegan-activist persona. I was completely shocked by it myself in the beginning, and at times it still feels a bit out of character. I resisted for four years, during my screw-pop-culture phase, a time throughout which I was the sort of person who insisted upon critiquing the cis-heteronormativity in One Direction's famous song, "What Makes You Beautiful." But one day you get tired, and hating everything that isn't perfect is a fruitless pursuit.
I'd probably be able to write a full essay on what I love about this group of boys. I'll start by rattling off a few reasons, but keep in mind that that is not the focus of this piece. I love that they are goofy and ridiculous, just a group of dumb kids mucking about and trying to have fun. I love that they are all from humble backgrounds, and have not lost those roots. I've watched plenty of interviews and videos since my induction into the 1D universe, and I can confidently say that they seem to have remained down-to-earth. I love that they are all such great friends and that there's very little inter-band drama. I love that they have the voices of angels and can pull off a five-part harmony like no one else. These are all wonderful things that make me happy, but I think what makes me happiest of all about One Direction is one of the boys in particular: Harry Styles.
A-ha, you saw it coming, did you? But wait! Let me explain. I don't love Harry because he is beautiful (which is, nonetheless, very very true and does not hurt his cause), nor is it because he has a beautiful singing voice (which is also a valid reason). Harry is the youngest, and easily the most publicized of the five band members. People have sold his vomit on ebay. That is a level of fame that few people will ever achieve at such a tender age (he's only 20 years old). By being the most fetishized of the group, he is under the most scrutiny by the media. Harry is at the same time the most eccentric of the crew, growing his hair ever longer and wearing coats in deserts and being generally very kooky. People that fit Harry's general description (teenage-ish white male) usually fall into one of my least favorite categories of human. But Harry is an anomaly, and the explanation as to why that is can be summed up with one of the most iconic quotes to be uttered in this century: "Not that important."
If decontextualized, that phrase means nothing. What isn't important, Harry? Why are you so nonchalant about it? But I re-read that phrase and my heart is set alight. When asked what four traits they look for in a lady, his bandmate, Liam Payne, said, "Female, that's a good trait," to which Harry laughed and replied, "Not that important." Go to this video and skip to 2:20. Watch the following fifteen seconds. There are a lot of theories floating around the internet, on Tumblr in particular, about what exactly happens during those fifteen seconds. Many people think it was staged (in addition to the onslaught of unapologetic media "shipping" of Louis Tomlinson and Harry Styles a few days before), because who would really say "female" in response to that question? That's not a very natural response. While Liam is talking, watch Harry's body language. He's tense, he's playing with the rings on his fingers, he's focusing really hard on something off-screen. If you watch the video from the beginning, it also becomes apparent that Harry is visibly uncomfortable (I suppose you might have to know a bit about how he usually acts in order to reach this conclusion, but he is generally a very charismatic and charming person), isn't really reacting to Liam's jokes, and is overall more serious than one would expect him to be. When the interviewer finishes reading the question, Harry takes a sharp inhale and then clears his throat, presumably steeling himself for the coming moment. It's hard to tell, but when Liam is saying "female," his right hand looks as though he's giving Harry a thumbs-up. After he says those three magical words, Liam emits what can best be described as a loving chuckle. He and Harry both look off camera in the same direction (what are they looking at? The world may never know), then Harry chuckles nervously (yet triumphantly, with relief) and continues on. Notice how the interviewer doesn't say a word, but rather giggles uncomfortably. His comment is never addressed. It is completely glossed over.
I swear my heart almost stopped when he said those three words. I'm sitting here trying to adequately express what it is that is so perfect about that phrase, but my mind keeps tripping over itself. The closest I can get is to say that "not that important" perfectly explains what it is to be queer (I use "queer" as an umbrella term to denote unspecified LGBTQ+ identities). It doesn't mean that queerness as an identity is unimportant. It means that someone can look at a concept like gender -- to which most people kowtow day and night -- and say, "Eh, not that important." Gender and the subsequent sexual orientations created around these genders have caused so many problems (this is the best word I can think of to describe the atrocities such as gender-based violence, the Westboro Baptist Church and the Hobby Lobby debacle) in our society that to say, in essence, "Eh, screw it," is massive. But when you're Harry Styles, it is MASSIVE.
Queerness is nothing new. As a queer person myself, I can tell you, it doesn't set me apart from others by giving me a tingly feeling in my feet at all times or allowing me the ability to hold my breath underwater. I'm not particularly fond of cisgendered males and prefer people that do not fit that description -- whoopdeedoo *twirls index fingers in a half-hearted manner to allude to a lack of excitement*. For some people, though, it's a sinful "problem" that needs to be rectified using violence, imprisonment, torture, bullying... an endless militia of horrible, horrible things. There are many places within this "progressive" country alone in which being openly LGBTQ+ will get you stabbed and thrown in prison. Having amazing figures like Laverne Cox, Janet Mock, Ellen Page and many others representing the celebrity LGBTQ+ community is huge. No offense intended to Laverne, Janet or Ellen, but Harry Styles' fame surpasses all of theirs. He is an international phenomenon. I lack the words to describe how vastly influential he is upon global society. So, now, I finally reach my point: if Harry Styles can shrug and say that female is not a trait he finds important in a partner, then what else can happen? In other words, if Harry Styles can be queer, anyone can be queer. The floodgates have sprung open. The LGBTQ+ community has taken an enormous step forward with those three little words.
On behalf of myself and at least four other people I've spoken to about this, I want to thank you, Harry, for your bravery. What you have done is so inexplicably amazing, not only as Harry Styles, but as an individual human being. For what it's worth, I am so proud of you.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Emma is fine
Alright friends. Here's the deal. I get that Emma Watson is a cishet thin young traditionally beautiful extremely wealthy Ivy educated white woman. I 100000% understand that. But here's the thing. You know how someone who is VERY PRIVILEGED, such as Emma Watson, was threatened with nudes and other ridiculous typical stupidity by the very people she was telling to own the fuck up to their wrongness? Could you even IMAGINE what would have happened if someone like, say, Laverne Cox were to speak on behalf of the UN? If a trans woman of color were to represent feminism and women's rights? NO ONE WOULD LISTEN. Because the people who respect and love and admire Laverne Cox are not the people that He For She is targeting. Or that anyone interested in actually progressing feminism should be targeting. We're already the "in" group. The people who think that homosexuality is a sin and white people are superior and abortion is also a sin and BLAH BLAH SHUT THE FUCK UP BLAH BLAH BLAH, these are the people we need to be targeting. So that's what He For She is, ideally, doing. It would be AMAZING if Laverne Cox were the spokesperson for an organization called Xe For All or something beautiful like that but WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD YET. We live in a world where Mike Brown disasters happen and we still are fighting the Roe v. Wade fight and the the wage gap is very much a thing and rape is happening all the goddamn time. That is the world we live in. So for right now, having a cishet thin young traditionally beautiful extremely wealthy Ivy educated white woman be the spokesperson for a gender-exclusive organization is an okay step. It's not the best step, but it is a step. So please, everyone, calm the heck down, we will get there, but we can't ignore the harsh realities. The world is not ready for Laverne, because they're barely ready for Emma.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
On top of it
Just a quick update telling the world that it is not even October and I have already written 14 out of 18 of my college application supplements. Plus my Common App essay. And one of my teachers already submitted her recommendation. I am on top of it.
I AM SO ON TOP OF IT
I AM SO ON TOP OF IT
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Put self on line
Sometimes it's okay to sit on the chair by the window and read, but sometimes you have to be bold. Put yourself on the line. It used to be terrifying to the point of sadness-anxiety but now it gives me kind of a rush and a boost of I'm-the-baddest-bitch confidence.
In the past 24 hours I have:
1) made polite conversation with several inebriated college students
2) danced in the same room as aforementioned inebriated college students and was not super self-conscious and actually enjoyed the physical act of dancing
3) given my number to a random kid's brother because we're the same age and live in the same state and I wanted to be his friend
4) talked to a past girlfriend for the first time in a while
(A note on #4: I HATE the word "ex," it's so repulsive to me. Like, what is that word. Don't say it. It's so dismissive and possessive at the same time. Your ex? The fuck does that mean? They belong to you? But you're also stressing that they DON'T belong to you? So what the heck are you trying to say here???)
Put self on line: CHECK
Wrote several college supplement essays: CHECK
Stressed out a little bit about a lot of things: CHECK
Being bold/etc is a complex psychological exercise because it builds your confidence by making you feel proud of yourself but it also puts you on edge because REACTIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE TO YOUR ACTIONS. NEWTONIAN SHIT.
Ah, life. How you baffle me.
I should listen to more radio podcasts. They are so interesting. (I'm talking to you, Radiolab.)
In the past 24 hours I have:
1) made polite conversation with several inebriated college students
2) danced in the same room as aforementioned inebriated college students and was not super self-conscious and actually enjoyed the physical act of dancing
3) given my number to a random kid's brother because we're the same age and live in the same state and I wanted to be his friend
4) talked to a past girlfriend for the first time in a while
(A note on #4: I HATE the word "ex," it's so repulsive to me. Like, what is that word. Don't say it. It's so dismissive and possessive at the same time. Your ex? The fuck does that mean? They belong to you? But you're also stressing that they DON'T belong to you? So what the heck are you trying to say here???)
Put self on line: CHECK
Wrote several college supplement essays: CHECK
Stressed out a little bit about a lot of things: CHECK
Being bold/etc is a complex psychological exercise because it builds your confidence by making you feel proud of yourself but it also puts you on edge because REACTIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE TO YOUR ACTIONS. NEWTONIAN SHIT.
Ah, life. How you baffle me.
I should listen to more radio podcasts. They are so interesting. (I'm talking to you, Radiolab.)
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Anniversaries
Repetition. It's not how memories are made, but how they're kept. The anniversaries remembered recently:
August 27th
September 26th
...and then there are some that have to be remembered every month, not because you want to remember them, but because you can't help it.
April 17th
May 17th
June 17th
July 17th
August 17th
September 17th
A year ago from yesterday (September 26th), I was admitted into the ER as a psych patient. I had welts from failed cuts on my wrists, and the paper bracelet they put on my wrist stung as it chafed my raw skin.
Someday I'll publish the journal entries I wrote during my subsequent 4 day ER stay, 10 day inpatient stay, and 8 day outpatient stay. I feel as though I should re-read the entries to acknowledge how far I've come in that year, but part of me knows that's not the right decision. Because when thoughts are repeated, the mind goes back to where it was the first time those thoughts existed--not completely, but it's transported momentarily. Yet however brief the visit is, that flashback can be dangerous. If revisited too soon, the cuts may not have healed and the picked-off scab will just bleed again. Obviously not as much as the first time around, when the knees fell to the ground and got scraped up on the asphalt. But blood is blood.
Every month is a new triumph. I've made it this far, when a year ago I barely made it out alive. My most recent birthday was celebrated as a day of congratulations to me for making it through the year. I've decided lately that every morning I want to thank the universe that I'm being given another chance to have a new/better/different/etc experience than the one i had the day before. And of course I want to thank it for being able-bodied and relatively able-minded, and not in poverty, and not ill or in poor health, and not in prison or a large public high school. To all those things I'd raise a glass, a glass of water to that, because alcoholic beverages are an anniversary unto themselves, a remembrance of 17s and 17ths. Alack, a story for another night.
August 27th
September 26th
...and then there are some that have to be remembered every month, not because you want to remember them, but because you can't help it.
April 17th
May 17th
June 17th
July 17th
August 17th
September 17th
A year ago from yesterday (September 26th), I was admitted into the ER as a psych patient. I had welts from failed cuts on my wrists, and the paper bracelet they put on my wrist stung as it chafed my raw skin.
Someday I'll publish the journal entries I wrote during my subsequent 4 day ER stay, 10 day inpatient stay, and 8 day outpatient stay. I feel as though I should re-read the entries to acknowledge how far I've come in that year, but part of me knows that's not the right decision. Because when thoughts are repeated, the mind goes back to where it was the first time those thoughts existed--not completely, but it's transported momentarily. Yet however brief the visit is, that flashback can be dangerous. If revisited too soon, the cuts may not have healed and the picked-off scab will just bleed again. Obviously not as much as the first time around, when the knees fell to the ground and got scraped up on the asphalt. But blood is blood.
Every month is a new triumph. I've made it this far, when a year ago I barely made it out alive. My most recent birthday was celebrated as a day of congratulations to me for making it through the year. I've decided lately that every morning I want to thank the universe that I'm being given another chance to have a new/better/different/etc experience than the one i had the day before. And of course I want to thank it for being able-bodied and relatively able-minded, and not in poverty, and not ill or in poor health, and not in prison or a large public high school. To all those things I'd raise a glass, a glass of water to that, because alcoholic beverages are an anniversary unto themselves, a remembrance of 17s and 17ths. Alack, a story for another night.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Happy Malala Day!!
Today is the first international Malala Day, celebrating the courage, bravery, persistence, and life of Malala Yousafzai. By now, we should all know the story of this amazing girl. If for some reason you don't, here's a very brief summary: the Taliban tried to deny her and the other girls in her village an education, but Malala fought back. On her way to school on October 9, 2012, Malala was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman. Miraculously, she survived. Malala has become an international figure of peace, an inexorable advocate and fighter for education for women, and an all around awesome inspiration to DO LIFE.
As someone who thinks GURLS ARE THE BEST THING THAT HAVE EVER HAPPENED TO THE WORLD and also thinks that LEARNING IS SOOOOOOOO AWESOME AND IMPORTANT AND IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WAYYY MORE OFTEN , and as a gurl that wants her gaddamn education without no one tellin' her how to do it, I'm really in love with Malala. I am so proud of her. Thank you for being alive, Malala. Also happy belated birthday!!! Yeeee!!! ~~~Seventeen~~
As someone who thinks GURLS ARE THE BEST THING THAT HAVE EVER HAPPENED TO THE WORLD and also thinks that LEARNING IS SOOOOOOOO AWESOME AND IMPORTANT AND IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WAYYY MORE OFTEN , and as a gurl that wants her gaddamn education without no one tellin' her how to do it, I'm really in love with Malala. I am so proud of her. Thank you for being alive, Malala. Also happy belated birthday!!! Yeeee!!! ~~~Seventeen~~
HAPPY MALALA DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monday, June 16, 2014
Your Logic is Flawed
There have been times in my life when I've been walking down the street and I've thought, Gee, that person sure is attractive. I look at them for a moment, perhaps we make eye contact, and then we pass each other and continue on with our respective days. Sometimes during fashion week I would go up to people and ask them timidly if I could photograph them for my blog--this was the norm during that biannual event. It never crossed my mind, should I find someone physically appealing or good-looking, to say "You are hot" or "Omg I would kiss you" or "Damn" or "Look at that ass" or "Gimme a smile" or...
Because why would it? It doesn't make any sense. In most cases, people don't really choose to be physically attractive; that's kind of where genetics comes in. Of course, the way one presents oneself is a contributing factor, but that's beside the point. Telling someone that they are attractive, or pointing out that you find part of their body attractive, is not in any way productive. Perhaps, one might kindly approach another person and say, "Excuse me, Waffle [in my world this word replaces all gendered titles, everyone is just Waffle], I was walking by and I realized that I find that you are very beautiful so I wanted to tell you that I think you are very beautiful. That's all, please continue on your day, I didn't mean to disturb you." That might be acceptable. Although, really, still unnecessary, because it doesn't really matter that you think that Waffle is beautiful. Their life and yours could go on without you telling them.
But for some absolutely baffling reason, there are certain people in the world that insist that it is their civic duty to tell every person they see that makes their neurons jump a little faster (note: I don't think that's scientifically accurate) exactly what they are thinking. This is terribly confusing to me. I've tried for a few minutes to think of a comparable example, but I can't think of one, because IT MAKES NO SENSE. The bottom line is that there is simply no need to express your thoughts on every human being you pass. It calls unsolicited attention to the subject, and calls negative attention to yourself as well. Any decent human being strongly dislikes a catcaller. Any time someone gives me that up-and-down look on the street or the subway I make a vomiting noise and put on my most disgusted face possible (involuntarily, mind you) and proceed to mumble to myself about "human garbage" and "fucking idiots." One time I was walking down the street with two friends and some random guy said something to us about the way we looked, and I turned around, flipped him two birds, and yelled "FUCK OFF." I do not tolerate this type of bullshit, nor is it my--or anyone else's--responsibility to. It should not even be a thing that we should even have to think about. And yet, it is a pervasive issue in society, especially for women, and those identifying as women, and those who identify as androgynous, and genderqueer, for transpeople, for those who don't identify at all... It's making our streets unsafe and our citizens uncomfortable and sad and angry. All because some jerk decided to open their mouth, when it could have EASILY stayed shut. The amount of energy it takes to not say something is in most cases drastically less than the amount of energy it takes to say something. So really, there is absolutely no reason at all that anyone should be shouting things at other people unless it's a friendly "Hello!" or "Howdy!" or "Greetings!" or "Watch out for that car!" because anything that does not engage the recipient of your comment in a meaningful way is not worth saying. "Hey baby," "Damn gurl," and "Oh shit" DO NOT COUNT AS FRIENDLY GREETINGS. Use your own fucking common decency to differentiate between what positively engages another human being and what is a thought that should stay inside your head. If everyone said everything we were thinking always, IT WOULD ROYALLY SUCK. And you know what royally sucks, not in the conditional? Catcalling. Street harassment. So you know what else? You should stop doing it. Be honest with yourself. If you've done it before, acknowledge your indecency and forgive yourself for your misguidedness and/or ignorance. But now, there's no excuse. No one can pull the "I didn't know it was insulting" or "I don't understand why it's a big deal." Because I just told you. If you continue to harass people on the street, you are a grade-A jerkbag and a top notch fartface. There's really nothing else to it. So just stop.
Because why would it? It doesn't make any sense. In most cases, people don't really choose to be physically attractive; that's kind of where genetics comes in. Of course, the way one presents oneself is a contributing factor, but that's beside the point. Telling someone that they are attractive, or pointing out that you find part of their body attractive, is not in any way productive. Perhaps, one might kindly approach another person and say, "Excuse me, Waffle [in my world this word replaces all gendered titles, everyone is just Waffle], I was walking by and I realized that I find that you are very beautiful so I wanted to tell you that I think you are very beautiful. That's all, please continue on your day, I didn't mean to disturb you." That might be acceptable. Although, really, still unnecessary, because it doesn't really matter that you think that Waffle is beautiful. Their life and yours could go on without you telling them.
But for some absolutely baffling reason, there are certain people in the world that insist that it is their civic duty to tell every person they see that makes their neurons jump a little faster (note: I don't think that's scientifically accurate) exactly what they are thinking. This is terribly confusing to me. I've tried for a few minutes to think of a comparable example, but I can't think of one, because IT MAKES NO SENSE. The bottom line is that there is simply no need to express your thoughts on every human being you pass. It calls unsolicited attention to the subject, and calls negative attention to yourself as well. Any decent human being strongly dislikes a catcaller. Any time someone gives me that up-and-down look on the street or the subway I make a vomiting noise and put on my most disgusted face possible (involuntarily, mind you) and proceed to mumble to myself about "human garbage" and "fucking idiots." One time I was walking down the street with two friends and some random guy said something to us about the way we looked, and I turned around, flipped him two birds, and yelled "FUCK OFF." I do not tolerate this type of bullshit, nor is it my--or anyone else's--responsibility to. It should not even be a thing that we should even have to think about. And yet, it is a pervasive issue in society, especially for women, and those identifying as women, and those who identify as androgynous, and genderqueer, for transpeople, for those who don't identify at all... It's making our streets unsafe and our citizens uncomfortable and sad and angry. All because some jerk decided to open their mouth, when it could have EASILY stayed shut. The amount of energy it takes to not say something is in most cases drastically less than the amount of energy it takes to say something. So really, there is absolutely no reason at all that anyone should be shouting things at other people unless it's a friendly "Hello!" or "Howdy!" or "Greetings!" or "Watch out for that car!" because anything that does not engage the recipient of your comment in a meaningful way is not worth saying. "Hey baby," "Damn gurl," and "Oh shit" DO NOT COUNT AS FRIENDLY GREETINGS. Use your own fucking common decency to differentiate between what positively engages another human being and what is a thought that should stay inside your head. If everyone said everything we were thinking always, IT WOULD ROYALLY SUCK. And you know what royally sucks, not in the conditional? Catcalling. Street harassment. So you know what else? You should stop doing it. Be honest with yourself. If you've done it before, acknowledge your indecency and forgive yourself for your misguidedness and/or ignorance. But now, there's no excuse. No one can pull the "I didn't know it was insulting" or "I don't understand why it's a big deal." Because I just told you. If you continue to harass people on the street, you are a grade-A jerkbag and a top notch fartface. There's really nothing else to it. So just stop.
Friday, April 11, 2014
The Frivolity of Human Rights
Henry David Thoreau once said: “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” (Thoreau, 1). The concept of anarchism has, over the years, garnered a reputation for endorsing the abolition of all government. In one sense of the word, that is true; it calls for getting rid of the form of governing that is and has been exercised for centuries, one driven by repression, oppression, force, and conformity. In another sense, it is false. Anarchism calls for a society unshackled from the chains of repression, oppression, force, and conformity, and instead one governed by natural laws that do not hinder in the name of order but support in the name of morality. Striking the balance is, of course, extremely difficult, especially when it comes to structuring the economic system. Money is inextricably linked to power, and governance (especially as it stands today) is about power dynamics. The application and execution of anarchism in modern society is contingent on our ability, as a species, to acknowledge and understand our collective responsibility to one another and to work together to rebuild our world to reflect more sustainable and compassionate values.
Traditional economics is classified by goods and services, means of production, and property ownership. Goods are defined as “[products] that can be seen or touched” (Antell and Harris, pp. 3-4), such as food, clothing, and electronics; services are said to be “useful work that cannot be seen or touched” (ibid.), like cooking, sewing, and building. The means of production are the tools and places used to produce goods and services, such as “factories, farms, shops, mines, and machinery” (ibid., 18). As a capitalist country, most of the United States’ means of production are private property, meaning they belong to the capitalist class—those that “can live without working” (Huberman and Sweezy, 24). The crux of the capitalist system is that it exploits the weak for the benefit of the strong: “It is therefore to the interest of the employer [business owners or capitalists] to pay as low wages as possible. It is likewise to his interest to get as much work out of his laborers as possible” (ibid., 24-25).
The majority of the population, the working class, earns wages in exchange for labor. The capitalist class earns profit from the difference between the value of the raw materials that the laborer converts into a sellable product and the value that said product is sold for. Therefore, the capitalist class’s financial benefit is exponentially greater than that of the working class. This desire to keep business costs down and business income up is called profit motive (Antell and Harris, 24). Capitalist societies are often not entirely run by private owners; government ownership is exemplified through public schools and colleges, the postal service, many public transportation systems, housing projects, and public libraries and parks. But in the grand scheme of an enormous society such as that of the United States, the few publicly owned aspects have nowhere near as much power as the many privately owned aspects.
Noam Chomsky’s (a contemporary anarchist) essay “Neoliberalism and Global Order” delves deeply into the structure of capitalism to dismantle the golden throne upon which modern society places it. He cites the Washington Consensus, which is a collection of market-oriented principles that have been designed by the United States government. The principles are as follows: to liberalize trade and finance, let markets set prices, end inflation, and privatize. Through these methods, the United States was able to obtain half of the world's wealth by the end of World War II. In fact, influential planner George Kennan urged us to “'cease talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization' and [we] must 'deal in straight power concepts,' not 'hampered by idealistic slogans' about 'altruism and world-benefaction'” (Neoliberalism and Global Order, 21). This is the mindset of the ruling class: human rights are frivolous, and money is worth more than peoples' lives. Most politicians aren't quite as blunt, however: when the government talks about “stability,” they are talking about maintaining the wealth of the upper classes, which is of course comprised of the politicians themselves. Capitalist countries' agendas have one goal, which is to fulfill their self-interest. As of 1995, 95% of the United States' transactions were speculative, because the rich wanted their money now, despite the fact that many economic experts warned against using this approach. This resulted in immense wealth for the few and extreme poverty for the many. But the poor did not matter, only the wealthy did. Business Week published a headline in 1994 reading: “The Problem Now: What To Do With All That Cash,” while the government continued to cut workforces and make more employees part-time workers so the companies did not have to provide them with security or benefits. Chomsky reports that “'at least twenty companies in the 1993 Fortune 100 would not have survived at all as independent companies, if they had not been saved by their respective governments'” (ibid., 38). The government has no problem giving corporations a leg up, but when it comes to the citizens, it’'s out of the question. It is very clear that the so-called democracy that is set up in the U.S. is a deception, and that the priorities of the government are ridiculously skewed.
Infamous anarchist Emma Goldman renounces the notion that anarchism is impractical. She says that the picture of practicality is to leave the behind old (what does not work or is useless) and build and sustain the new. By that logic, she argues, anarchism is completely practical. It is only so vehemently rejected and unpopular because it is deeply misunderstood. She writes: “How is the ordinary man to know that the most violent element in society is ignorance; that its power of destruction is the very thing Anarchism is combatting?” (Goldman, 3). According to Goldman, anarchism is liberty unrestricted by man-made law, not all law. It follows the laws of nature: cooperation, equality, compassion. Man-made law, on the other hand, uses violence to enforce rules that are often antithetical to the intentions of nature. The state supposedly diminishes crime. The average citizen is not the one who declares war, nor is the citizen responsible for capital punishment; the government has the authority and distance from the heart of the issues to cause much more physical damage than any one person could ever do.
Whereas organization and control are prioritized in modern society, Goldman believes that “the individual is the heart of society” (ibid., 4). We are forced to become cogs in the wheel, and those that do not are shunned into homelessness and poverty. What is society but a collection of individuals? What is the sea but drops of water? Without each individual, each drop of water, the world would literally not be the same. Therein lies the power of the individual, the secret potential lying dormant in each breast. The power we should be encouraged to gain is the command of the self and therefore a truer sense of self within the whole. This results in a greater willingness to contribute to the whole. Instead, we are taught to strive for material wealth, because wealth provides power, and that is often the end of the sentence. But this coveted power is merely the ability to subdue, exploit, and degrade. It is a useless and toxic goal. As Goldman writes, “The state is the altar of political freedom and like the religious altar, it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice” (ibid., 7). She says that there is another way. We must adhere only to the laws of necessity—dictated by nature itself—and find solidarity of interests. This will lead to social harmony. When we can learn to cooperate with one another and do not create unnecessary hierarchies amongst ourselves, work will become enjoyable and worthwhile. This aspect of anarchism is in line with Hinduism, in that the latter teaches to not work for the fruits of labor, but rather for the sake of work itself and the pleasure derived from it. All people have differing interests and capabilities, and there is more than enough natural variety among the human race to perform the necessary tasks.
The ideas of Noam Chomsky are similarly in line with Emma Goldman’s in many respects. While anarchism is often dismissed as “utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society” (On Anarchism, 2), Chomsky was able to outline its two main goals. They are to free society from political power, and to have an alliance of cooperative laborers and administration of things that are of interest to the community. He does, however, concede that there are several conditions on which the plausibility of anarchism rests. It is only possible if the identity of workers shifts from the ‘lower classes’ to everyone that is able to work and contribute to society. This segues into the concept that there is no need for superior power or special privilege when private property or ownership does not exist. Marx-Engels theory believes that authority cannot be abolished or else the proletariat will not have any leverage over its oppressors. However, this just creates a new power structure, which conflicts with anarchist ideals. Mikhail Bakunin said: “Formal liberty…[is] an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest” (ibid., 7). By this he means that so-called freedom administered by a body of power is not freedom at all, because it had to be granted and can be taken away by the same body of power. The only restrictions that should exist are those that are determined by our individual nature. The argument that chaos would ensue should society become anarchist is baseless. Most human beings commit acts of violence to gain something, whether it be material wealth or social power; when these two things no longer concern us, why should guns be raised at one another? Why should fists lash out?
Chomsky also itemizes a list of qualities or ideas that an anarchist must have or subscribe to. Anarchists must oppose private ownership, especially that of the means of production and wage slavery. They must believe in freely undertaken labor, for labor is the means of life. In modern society, we have lost the satisfaction (really any connection at all) to the sources of our food, shelter, clothing, material possessions, and almost everything else. We no longer know the pleasure, pride, and fulfillment derived from creating something from nothing with the aid of nature and our fellow human beings. We are so far disconnected from this notion that we doubt its truth, but most that reject it have never tested it for themselves. Chomsky argues: “Control of production by a state bureaucracy, no matter how benevolent its intentions, also does not create the conditions under which labor, manual and intellectual, can become the highest want in life. Both, then, must be overcome” (11). Anarchists must also oppose alienated and specialized labor. Ideally, everyone will contribute to everything, which diminishes hierarchy. Lastly, the anarchist must believe in the abolition of capital and wage labor because, as Karl Marx said, wage labor turns humans into “a mere appurtenance of the machine” (ibid., 10). Spontaneous revolution is questionable; long-term education and discussion is a better route to achieving the goals set forth by anarchist theory.
While the practical application of anarchism in the modern world is often doubted, there exist many examples that may serve to combat this skepticism. Bluestockings, located in New York City, is a radical bookstore, activist center, and fair-trade café that operates on a collectively-owned volunteer-powered basis. It opened in 1999 and is still operating today. Bluestockings’ website describes how its workforce is structured: “[we] have a variety of roles falling along a spectrum of time commitment and responsibility, rather than a hierarchy of authority” (Our Structure). Volunteers generally contribute one weekly three-hour shift (although some may wish to work more time either in the store or on special projects), staffers do one weekly six- to eight-hour shift, and members of the collective (“a group of passionate individuals who bottom-line store operations together” (ibid.)) work 10-30 hours a week. Janelle Kilmer, one of the current collective members, was able to join the collective about a year after she began volunteering. The original owner, Kathryn Welsh, had to sell the store a few years after opening it and it was bought by Brooke Lehman, whose contribution was treated as a loan and was paid back once the money had been made. Bluestockings has been financially self-sustained ever since. The store stays afloat through volunteer labor, maintaining regular customers, offering events to the public almost every day, and providing a safe and open space for the entire community, all without compromising its integrity.
While Kilmer admits that being a collective member requires one to be in “a very unique financial position to be able to dedicate enough time here, either on unemployment, have really cheap rent...or have a partner or parent that helps support you,” it is not impossible. There are hundreds of volunteers that dedicate their time at the store, with only the promise of free coffee and tea, a 15% discount off merchandise, and the warmth of a welcoming community to tempt them. Most people would be shocked by the notion that volunteering still happens and that people are willing to spend time and energy on activities that do not directly benefit them or offer them any sort of financial compensation. Despite general disbelief, non-hierarchal, unremunerative, and undiscriminating environments can exist and be sustained. Bluestockings has a safer space policy, which is a set of general guidelines that Kilmer describes as “requiring people to respect one another, to be courteous of different types of people, to not make assumptions, to not be violent or disruptive or insulting people. Then the idea is that if somebody does do that, they would be called out on their behavior and then asked to stop, or asked to leave for a short period of time. ... We’re more into holding people accountable but also keep in mind that people make mistakes, and also keeping in line with the idea of transformative justice, that you want to allow people to change and not shame them or ridicule them or not allow them another chance.” This policy is one that would do extremely well to be emulated on a larger scale, preferably in all areas of life. Common decency, responsibility, respect, and kindness should not be considered far-fetched, utopian concepts.
The arguments for anarchism, when viewed through a compassionate, sustainability-focused lens, far outweigh the arguments against it. Oppression and autocracy are often justified by citing human nature, efficiency, complexity of modern life, and a slew of other things. Human nature is used as a crutch, an excuse, so people don’t have to take responsibility for their words and actions. Our words and actions have been, over time, so manipulated by society that we cannot know what human nature is in these unnatural conditions. We can, however, know that our capitalistic, selfish, and narrow-minded ways are inherently and quite literally unnatural. As the film director Tom Shadyac said in his documentary I Am: “An ocean, a rainforest, the human body, are all co-operatives. The redwood tree doesn't take all the soil and nutrients, just what it needs to grow. A lion doesn't kill every gazelle, just one. We have a term for something in the body when it takes more than its share, we call it: cancer.” Our current lifestyle, especially in this country, is cancerous. It breeds malignancy and destruction within our infrastructure, the corruption of important communication and homeostasis, and, coincidentally, has a tendency to result in death (both literal and metaphysical). The answer is simple--all that is left to do is pursue it.
Noam Chomsky’s (a contemporary anarchist) essay “Neoliberalism and Global Order” delves deeply into the structure of capitalism to dismantle the golden throne upon which modern society places it. He cites the Washington Consensus, which is a collection of market-oriented principles that have been designed by the United States government. The principles are as follows: to liberalize trade and finance, let markets set prices, end inflation, and privatize. Through these methods, the United States was able to obtain half of the world's wealth by the end of World War II. In fact, influential planner George Kennan urged us to “'cease talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization' and [we] must 'deal in straight power concepts,' not 'hampered by idealistic slogans' about 'altruism and world-benefaction'” (Neoliberalism and Global Order, 21). This is the mindset of the ruling class: human rights are frivolous, and money is worth more than peoples' lives. Most politicians aren't quite as blunt, however: when the government talks about “stability,” they are talking about maintaining the wealth of the upper classes, which is of course comprised of the politicians themselves. Capitalist countries' agendas have one goal, which is to fulfill their self-interest. As of 1995, 95% of the United States' transactions were speculative, because the rich wanted their money now, despite the fact that many economic experts warned against using this approach. This resulted in immense wealth for the few and extreme poverty for the many. But the poor did not matter, only the wealthy did. Business Week published a headline in 1994 reading: “The Problem Now: What To Do With All That Cash,” while the government continued to cut workforces and make more employees part-time workers so the companies did not have to provide them with security or benefits. Chomsky reports that “'at least twenty companies in the 1993 Fortune 100 would not have survived at all as independent companies, if they had not been saved by their respective governments'” (ibid., 38). The government has no problem giving corporations a leg up, but when it comes to the citizens, it’'s out of the question. It is very clear that the so-called democracy that is set up in the U.S. is a deception, and that the priorities of the government are ridiculously skewed.
Infamous anarchist Emma Goldman renounces the notion that anarchism is impractical. She says that the picture of practicality is to leave the behind old (what does not work or is useless) and build and sustain the new. By that logic, she argues, anarchism is completely practical. It is only so vehemently rejected and unpopular because it is deeply misunderstood. She writes: “How is the ordinary man to know that the most violent element in society is ignorance; that its power of destruction is the very thing Anarchism is combatting?” (Goldman, 3). According to Goldman, anarchism is liberty unrestricted by man-made law, not all law. It follows the laws of nature: cooperation, equality, compassion. Man-made law, on the other hand, uses violence to enforce rules that are often antithetical to the intentions of nature. The state supposedly diminishes crime. The average citizen is not the one who declares war, nor is the citizen responsible for capital punishment; the government has the authority and distance from the heart of the issues to cause much more physical damage than any one person could ever do.
Whereas organization and control are prioritized in modern society, Goldman believes that “the individual is the heart of society” (ibid., 4). We are forced to become cogs in the wheel, and those that do not are shunned into homelessness and poverty. What is society but a collection of individuals? What is the sea but drops of water? Without each individual, each drop of water, the world would literally not be the same. Therein lies the power of the individual, the secret potential lying dormant in each breast. The power we should be encouraged to gain is the command of the self and therefore a truer sense of self within the whole. This results in a greater willingness to contribute to the whole. Instead, we are taught to strive for material wealth, because wealth provides power, and that is often the end of the sentence. But this coveted power is merely the ability to subdue, exploit, and degrade. It is a useless and toxic goal. As Goldman writes, “The state is the altar of political freedom and like the religious altar, it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice” (ibid., 7). She says that there is another way. We must adhere only to the laws of necessity—dictated by nature itself—and find solidarity of interests. This will lead to social harmony. When we can learn to cooperate with one another and do not create unnecessary hierarchies amongst ourselves, work will become enjoyable and worthwhile. This aspect of anarchism is in line with Hinduism, in that the latter teaches to not work for the fruits of labor, but rather for the sake of work itself and the pleasure derived from it. All people have differing interests and capabilities, and there is more than enough natural variety among the human race to perform the necessary tasks.
The ideas of Noam Chomsky are similarly in line with Emma Goldman’s in many respects. While anarchism is often dismissed as “utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society” (On Anarchism, 2), Chomsky was able to outline its two main goals. They are to free society from political power, and to have an alliance of cooperative laborers and administration of things that are of interest to the community. He does, however, concede that there are several conditions on which the plausibility of anarchism rests. It is only possible if the identity of workers shifts from the ‘lower classes’ to everyone that is able to work and contribute to society. This segues into the concept that there is no need for superior power or special privilege when private property or ownership does not exist. Marx-Engels theory believes that authority cannot be abolished or else the proletariat will not have any leverage over its oppressors. However, this just creates a new power structure, which conflicts with anarchist ideals. Mikhail Bakunin said: “Formal liberty…[is] an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest” (ibid., 7). By this he means that so-called freedom administered by a body of power is not freedom at all, because it had to be granted and can be taken away by the same body of power. The only restrictions that should exist are those that are determined by our individual nature. The argument that chaos would ensue should society become anarchist is baseless. Most human beings commit acts of violence to gain something, whether it be material wealth or social power; when these two things no longer concern us, why should guns be raised at one another? Why should fists lash out?
Chomsky also itemizes a list of qualities or ideas that an anarchist must have or subscribe to. Anarchists must oppose private ownership, especially that of the means of production and wage slavery. They must believe in freely undertaken labor, for labor is the means of life. In modern society, we have lost the satisfaction (really any connection at all) to the sources of our food, shelter, clothing, material possessions, and almost everything else. We no longer know the pleasure, pride, and fulfillment derived from creating something from nothing with the aid of nature and our fellow human beings. We are so far disconnected from this notion that we doubt its truth, but most that reject it have never tested it for themselves. Chomsky argues: “Control of production by a state bureaucracy, no matter how benevolent its intentions, also does not create the conditions under which labor, manual and intellectual, can become the highest want in life. Both, then, must be overcome” (11). Anarchists must also oppose alienated and specialized labor. Ideally, everyone will contribute to everything, which diminishes hierarchy. Lastly, the anarchist must believe in the abolition of capital and wage labor because, as Karl Marx said, wage labor turns humans into “a mere appurtenance of the machine” (ibid., 10). Spontaneous revolution is questionable; long-term education and discussion is a better route to achieving the goals set forth by anarchist theory.
While the practical application of anarchism in the modern world is often doubted, there exist many examples that may serve to combat this skepticism. Bluestockings, located in New York City, is a radical bookstore, activist center, and fair-trade café that operates on a collectively-owned volunteer-powered basis. It opened in 1999 and is still operating today. Bluestockings’ website describes how its workforce is structured: “[we] have a variety of roles falling along a spectrum of time commitment and responsibility, rather than a hierarchy of authority” (Our Structure). Volunteers generally contribute one weekly three-hour shift (although some may wish to work more time either in the store or on special projects), staffers do one weekly six- to eight-hour shift, and members of the collective (“a group of passionate individuals who bottom-line store operations together” (ibid.)) work 10-30 hours a week. Janelle Kilmer, one of the current collective members, was able to join the collective about a year after she began volunteering. The original owner, Kathryn Welsh, had to sell the store a few years after opening it and it was bought by Brooke Lehman, whose contribution was treated as a loan and was paid back once the money had been made. Bluestockings has been financially self-sustained ever since. The store stays afloat through volunteer labor, maintaining regular customers, offering events to the public almost every day, and providing a safe and open space for the entire community, all without compromising its integrity.
While Kilmer admits that being a collective member requires one to be in “a very unique financial position to be able to dedicate enough time here, either on unemployment, have really cheap rent...or have a partner or parent that helps support you,” it is not impossible. There are hundreds of volunteers that dedicate their time at the store, with only the promise of free coffee and tea, a 15% discount off merchandise, and the warmth of a welcoming community to tempt them. Most people would be shocked by the notion that volunteering still happens and that people are willing to spend time and energy on activities that do not directly benefit them or offer them any sort of financial compensation. Despite general disbelief, non-hierarchal, unremunerative, and undiscriminating environments can exist and be sustained. Bluestockings has a safer space policy, which is a set of general guidelines that Kilmer describes as “requiring people to respect one another, to be courteous of different types of people, to not make assumptions, to not be violent or disruptive or insulting people. Then the idea is that if somebody does do that, they would be called out on their behavior and then asked to stop, or asked to leave for a short period of time. ... We’re more into holding people accountable but also keep in mind that people make mistakes, and also keeping in line with the idea of transformative justice, that you want to allow people to change and not shame them or ridicule them or not allow them another chance.” This policy is one that would do extremely well to be emulated on a larger scale, preferably in all areas of life. Common decency, responsibility, respect, and kindness should not be considered far-fetched, utopian concepts.
The arguments for anarchism, when viewed through a compassionate, sustainability-focused lens, far outweigh the arguments against it. Oppression and autocracy are often justified by citing human nature, efficiency, complexity of modern life, and a slew of other things. Human nature is used as a crutch, an excuse, so people don’t have to take responsibility for their words and actions. Our words and actions have been, over time, so manipulated by society that we cannot know what human nature is in these unnatural conditions. We can, however, know that our capitalistic, selfish, and narrow-minded ways are inherently and quite literally unnatural. As the film director Tom Shadyac said in his documentary I Am: “An ocean, a rainforest, the human body, are all co-operatives. The redwood tree doesn't take all the soil and nutrients, just what it needs to grow. A lion doesn't kill every gazelle, just one. We have a term for something in the body when it takes more than its share, we call it: cancer.” Our current lifestyle, especially in this country, is cancerous. It breeds malignancy and destruction within our infrastructure, the corruption of important communication and homeostasis, and, coincidentally, has a tendency to result in death (both literal and metaphysical). The answer is simple--all that is left to do is pursue it.
**********
Works Cited
Antell, Gerson and Walter Harris. “Chapter 2: Types of Economic Systems,” Economics for Everybody. AMSO: New York, 1994.
Chomsky, Noam. “Notes on Anarchism,” On Anarchism. New Press: New York, 2013.
Chomsky Noam. “Neoliberalism and Global Order,” Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. Seven Stories Press: New York, 1999.
Goldman, Emma. “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For,” Anarchism and Other Essays. IndyPublish: Virginia.
Huberman, Leo and Paul Sweezy. Introduction to Socialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1952.
I Am. Dir. Tom Shadyac. Shady Acres Entertainment, 2010. DVD.
Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” 1849.
"Our Structure." Bluestockings. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2014. <http://bluestockings.com/about/our-structure/>.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
SKINGRAFT
I never posted these either...I even interviewed the designer on my dinky phone and I don't even know where the sound clip went. I m krown bloggr.
Anyway, here are the photos from SKINGRAFT S/S 2014.
[Photos by me.]
Don't you love when I'm not assigned to sit front row but I do it anyway?
Katya Leonovich
Wait this is so funny it's been like a million years since this happened and I STILL have not posted the photos. ....Here they are.....
(The show is Katya Leonovich S/S 2014.)
ALSO: I interviewed the designer, check out the video at the BOTTOM of the post.
[Photos by me.]
Sunday, March 23, 2014
How To Be A Natural Babe
~I AM A NATURAL BABE~
u make me feel lyk a natral womunnn
o heh how r u
i m bug
i look lyk rokstar yes?
that is fire on my head
HELLO
Ever wonder how I can do such kickass things with my hair WITHOUT PUTTING ANYTHING IN IT AT ALL? I'll tell ya. But first, an introduction.
*******
The best way to do anything is not to fight nature, but to work with it. That's why I stopped using shampoo and conditioner and I started changing the way I take care of my body from the outside and the inside. I learned how to conquer my fear of acids and bicarbonates (okay, fine, I was never afraid of bicarbonates). I embrace my past fears (see above). And now we all work together in a beautiful little circle of ~natural goodness.~ I also became vegan, which deserves a whole essay unto itself, but I'll go into it a lilabet. My scientific knowledge extends to basic biology and chemistry and nutrition, with a few factoids here and there, so you don't have to believe me if you don't want, but I suggest that you do because the facts make sense and "nature never wears a mean appearance" (Ralph Waldo Emerson "Nature").
ARE YOU READY FOR BITCHIN HAIR YEAH I THOUGHT SO
I'm going to assume that over the years you've tried out different shampoo and conditioner brands, maybe switching it up every once in a while. I've had a lot of different hairstyles over the past few years, and I would always dread showering because it meant that there was a slim chance my hair would do what I wanted it to without a lot of manual manipulation. I now blame this partially on the fact that I used store-bought hair products that totally fucked up my scalp's zen. Shampoo is, by definition, a detergent. That word makes me think of a washing machine. Imagine washing your hair with laundry detergent. Doesn't sound like such a great idea anymore, does it. Human heads naturally produce oil (I think it's to protect our scalps or something? Remember, I don't know the hardcore science I just know the basics), but when we use shampoo we strip that natural oil right off our nice lil heads and it goes whooshing down the drown. If you have oily hair (anyone who knew me in middle school can attest to the fact that my bangs were basically oil city), you're probably thinking, "Damn, that sounds awesome." But the thing is, you don't usually shampoo your hair and get out of the shower. You put in conditioner afterward. Conditioner puts other (i.e. not humanly-produced) oils back on your scalp, and then your scalp is like, "yo wait what I thought I was naked but now I'm being smushed by this weird stuff that smells like sea breeze...I gotta get this shit OFF of me" so it starts producing all of its oils like crazy to try and combat these foreigner weirdos, and then you have oily hair so you take another shower and the evil cycle is perpetuated.
When I bleached my hair, I felt really bad for my little hair follicles that had to suffer so dramatically, so I decided to go "no poo," a method which I will explain to you. You can read other people's articles about no poo if you want some more info.
Baking soda is a bicarbonate. It is actually sodium bicarbonate. That means its chemical makeup is sodium, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. That's it. Those are all familiar words. No trizoxythelene sulfate and monoethylate norexizene (I bet if I weren't about to tell you that I made those names up you wouldn't have questioned whether or not they're real) to be found. Baking soda is a natural cleansing agent and is the weakest alkaline/base (pH of 9) so it's a-OK to use on and in you (it's a regular ingredient in lots of recipes). For every cup of water, mix in a tablespoon of baking soda. Put it in a squeeze bottle or some sort of container (they sell empty squeeze bottles at CVS in pretty colors), and shake it up. This is your shampoo. I've found that my baking soda doesn't actually dissolve in the water and maybe it's 'cause I'm doing something wrong, but just shake it before each time you use it if this happens to you too. Once your hair is wet in the shower, use some of the baking soda "shampoo" by massaging it into your scalp (when your scalp is clean, the strands will follow suit). It won't feel like much is going on, but it totally is. If you want, wait a few minutes before you rinse it out and spend the interim singing.
Apple cider vinegar is--you guessed it--a type of vinegar obtained by crushing apples to get the juice out and then is fermented. Hippocrates (yes, that Hippocrates, the "Father of Medicine," c. 400 BC) loved the stuff and used it for basically everything. I use it for lots of things because it has so many benefits, but the initial reason I bought it was to put it in my hair. Apple cider vinegar (ACV from hereon out for efficiency) is special in that it's a mild acid on the pH scale, but when it goes inside our bodies it has the effect of an alkaline/base. That's sort of irrelevant here because your hair resides externally, but it will be useful info in a little while. Since baking soda is a weak base and ACV is a weak acid, they balance each other out and neutralize the pH of your hair/scalp, because I definitely don't want a basic or acidic head. The ratio for ACV to water is the same: one tablespoon to every cup. Put it in a squeeze bottle, shake it up, put a lil bit on the ends of your hair (for me the ends of my hair and my scalp are in the same place), let the ACV chill there for a second, and then rinse it out.
There may be a transition period of a few weeks to a few months of your hair adjusting to the ~naturalness~ but I didn't have a transition period at all. When I get out of the shower my hair feels a little funky in the sense that it feels kind of thick and weighed down, but then it dries very nicely and is soft for a day or two and then it gets really easy to manipulate and play around with. This is probably also due to the haircut that I have, so I can't say much regarding non-pixie hairstyles. I also only wash my hair every three or so days, sometimes more. I'll wash it when it starts to feel a little itchy or if it just looks stupid.
As I mentioned earlier, I began vegan a few months ago and I'm feeling like a rockstar. I'm sure that all the nice vitamins and minerals and healthiness that I consume on the regz definitely make my hair healthier and stronger and maybe even grow faster.
Okay so the moral of the story is: don't wash your hair often, don't use chemicals/artificial stuff on or in your body, sleep a lot (bedhead woooo), drink lots of water (hydration for them follicles), and become vegan. whoa what
Enjoy your weekend!
ALSO: If you have a minute to spare, please check out the fundraiser me and a friend/teacher have organized to raise money for me to become a certified yoga teacher. You'll be helping a sistah fulfill her dreamz so if you can find it in your heart to either share the fundraiser with people you know and/or donate even just $1, however much you can comfortably give, I'll send you love forever and ever!!!!! Just go to THIS LINK:
www.youcaring.com/TTtuitFund
As I mentioned earlier, I began vegan a few months ago and I'm feeling like a rockstar. I'm sure that all the nice vitamins and minerals and healthiness that I consume on the regz definitely make my hair healthier and stronger and maybe even grow faster.
Okay so the moral of the story is: don't wash your hair often, don't use chemicals/artificial stuff on or in your body, sleep a lot (bedhead woooo), drink lots of water (hydration for them follicles), and become vegan. whoa what
Enjoy your weekend!
ALSO: If you have a minute to spare, please check out the fundraiser me and a friend/teacher have organized to raise money for me to become a certified yoga teacher. You'll be helping a sistah fulfill her dreamz so if you can find it in your heart to either share the fundraiser with people you know and/or donate even just $1, however much you can comfortably give, I'll send you love forever and ever!!!!! Just go to THIS LINK:
www.youcaring.com/TTtuitFund
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)