(via queerandpresentdanger)
”
If you are reading this in the United States or Canada, whose land are you on, dear reader? What are the specific names of the Native nation(s) who have historical claim to the territory on which you currently read this article? What are their histories before European invasion? What are their historical and present acts of resistance to colonial occupation? If you are like most people in the United States and Canada, you cannot answer these questions. And this disturbs me.
Qwo-Li Driskill (Cherokee), “Doubleweaving Two-Spirit Critiques: Building Alliances between Native and Queer Studies” (via nepantlastrategies)
”
Recognising the deliberateness of abusers’ behaviour is disturbing; it is much more comfortable to believe that abusers and/or their partners are merely repeating what they learnt in childhood. ‘Cycle of abuse’ theories rework old orthodoxies; transforming abusers into victims, and placing mothers back in the collusive frame.
www.cwasu.org/filedown.asp?file=Weasel%20Words.pdf (via sisterresister)
this is really interesting and raises a lot of points I don’t think I’ve ever seen discussed:
- if there’s a “cycle of abuse”, how come it’s not mostly women sexually abusing children, when more girls than boys are sexually abused? it doesn’t add up
- if we talk about “paedophilia” instead of child abusers we allow them to act like they’re being oppressed for their ‘orientation’ and ‘they can’t help it’, which is both dangerous to children and homophobic (I see this one discussed occasionally)
- if we talk about “paedophilia” we ignore that most men who rape children are also sexually interested in adults
- if we talk about “paedophilia”, with the two above points, we conjure up an image of a man who rapes little boys because of his lack of sexual interest in women. but this is false on both counts in the majority of cases
- women who were abused are assumed to allow men to abuse their children - and she’s blamed, not him
- because they report their children to be abused more, it’s assumed that they are abused more. but the truth seems to be the opposite: women who were abused are both more likely to recognise the signs in their own children, and more protective of abused children.
- it’s not single mothers who look for abusers (they legally can’t check, unlike employers!) - it’s abusers who look for single mothers, particularly women who were abused themselves (people talk about this a little bit)
- the whole thing is harmful to those who’ve been abused as children - most don’t go on to abuse children. not only does it make authority figures doubt them, it makes them doubt themselves
(via kittensandskeletons)
Lorraine Binie Kinnear auf We Heart It. http://weheartit.com/entry/52348192/via/lorrainekinnear
(via fuckyeahhardfemme)
I figured out French knots after years of winding the floss the wrong way 😳
This is so fab.
(via baroncaveyeti)
(Source: hahamagartconnect, via vonnegutesque)
“Hang the eucalyptus upside down by tying it to your shower head with twine. When you run your shower, the steam will rise up towards the eucalyptus, filling your bathroom with the most refreshing, relaxing scent. Plus, the added greens are lovely on the eyes. You’ll definitely feel a little closer to nature.”
(Source: softmints, via lindablairewasborninnocent)
(Source: keemswagmasta15thprestige, via hufflovelikevalium)
Perfect human alert.
fucking hell, grace. <3
(via hauteproportions)
”
You mean the generation that paid three times as much for college to enter a job market with triple the unemployment isn’t interested in purchasing the assets of the generation who just blew an enormous housing bubble and kept it from popping through quantitative easing and out-and-out federal support? Curious.
When comments are better than the article, Atlantic edition (“The Cheapest Generation: Why Millennials arent’ buying cars or houses, and what that means for the economy”)
(Source: bostonreview, via philtippett)
