The Situation


I want to know if I am correct about this.

So, its correct to say that 

-whites have privilege over POC

-straight people have privilege over homosexuals/gays/queers/trans

-and men have privilege over women

Because being straight white and male is usually a fucking positive in society.

So, I have privilege that gays do not have.

I can get married.

I can be completely open about my relationships with men. Because its considered normal. 

When I go to movie theaters or watch TV, most of the shows are about straight relationships and straight families with straight people.

And if there are homosexuals in those shows, they are usually heavily stereotyped.

SO! If I am correct, the situation is—-me, myself—-I understand that there are things about homosexuals that I know NOTHING ABOUT. That I dont understand and that I may be shocked to find out. 

I understand that homosexuals experience things that I could not even fathom, because I am not gay.

Now I have two choices.

1. I can learn and listen and be understanding, supportive and caring about Gay Rights.


2. I can freak out and call every homosexual I know a heterophobic asshole for calling me a BREEDER. Because thats discriminating against me being straight. I cant help being straight. I never CHOSE this lifestyle.

Now, lets take this situation, and assess how incredibly pathetic and hilarious #2 is.

(Source: colormeradical)




“Against Equality is an online archive, publishing, and arts collective focused on critiquing mainstream gay and lesbian politics. As queer thinkers, writers and artists, we are committed to dislodging the centrality of equality rhetoric and challenging the demand for inclusion in the institution of marriage, the US military, and the prison industrial complex via hate crimes legislation.

We want to reinvigorate the queer political imagination with fantastic possibility!”

Against Equality Collective 

Time for me to go on this website and get reading!

(Source: thyhallowedchaplin)

On Sunday, November 9th, 2008, over thirty radical queers from around the Midwest disrupted the sermon of a notoriously anti-queer and anti-choice megachurch.



The Mount Hope Church is a deplorable, anti-queer megachurch in Lansing, Michigan. The church works to institutionalize transphobia and homophobia through several repulsive projects including organized ex-gay conferences and so-called hell houses in Halloween, which the faithful used to scare children with images of ghoulish abortionists and sodomites.

That afternoon, a small group of folks dressed in pink and black, equipped with a megaphone, black/pink flags, picket signs and an upside-down pink cross began demonstrating outside the church. The group was extremely loud and wildly offensive. The demonstration drew a majority of Mount Hope’s security staff outside to watch them. 

Meanwhile, with the guards pre-occupied by the distraction, over a dozen queers had put on their Sunday-best and infiltrated the church’s congregation. At the signal that the guards had been lured outside, the infiltrators sprung into action. 

A group stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly. Upon hearing the loud interruption, other affinity groups went into action. A team that had been hiding under the pews in the closed-off balcony dropped a banner and pulled back the curtains to reveal “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”

Another faction rose to chant, “Jesus was a homo,” while flinging pamphlets, glitter, and condoms into the air. As ushers scrambled to collect the condoms, two women moved toward the pulpit, where they launched into a lusty kiss.

When asked why they did this, one of the members said, “We’re not trying to change people’s minds, we’re not trying to bend straight people to give us freedom—we’re fighting back. We’re going to stop them from preaching hate, stop them from creating an environment that’s unfriendly to gay, queer, and trans* people. We’re not going to be nice about it because they sure as hell aren’t being nice about it.”


(via jadedfucker-deactivated20120302)


“Marxism Will Heal the Sick” by Frida Kahlo


“Marxism Will Heal the Sick” by Frida Kahlo

(Source: dialectics8)




The reblog source doesn’t include artists or an original source url, but the pieces in the top row appear to be by Favianna Rodriguez

(via newsfrompoems)

Lift the Ban on Same Sex Marriage in Scotland


Sign it?

(via zellas)

"A Letter from Huey Newton...about the Women’s Liberation and Gay Liberation Movements"


I felt this text needed to be featured in it’s entirety. Please read! I know it’s long but do it or me? Pwease? …It’s really touching a deep place in my heart. 
     **Emphasis & Italicization Mine


During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say “whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppressed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner

LGBT Books Website


This is a fantastic site for finding LGBT books and they are divided up by gay, lesbian, trans, questioning, LGBT parent or caretaker, family, friends, etc. Check it out -

(submitted by allyouneedisyayness)

Mexico City mulls 2-year marriage


Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses. Leftists in the city’s assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.

The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.

“The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill. “You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce,” said Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber.

Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year. Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years. 


A creation story of the lesbian blue star tattoo, from Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy and Madeline D. Davis, Boots of leather, slippers of gold: the history of a lesbian community (New York: Psychology Press, 1993), pp. 189-190. (via)

(via newsfrompoems)



Ten seconds flat!



Ten seconds flat!

(via chauvinistsushi)

A website that keeps track of all the homophobic public figures who are then caught in a scandal for their sexual practices.


Man, this just made my day.

(via pinkpanthers)

Anti-Feminism Through Exotification: A Comparative Analysis of The Ballad of Mulan and Disney’s Mulan


A paper I wrote a while back on Disney’s Mulan, vs. the Original Ballad of Mulan. I think it’s pretty cool. Sources are cited at the end of the paper, if you want to read more. I recommend it.

Read More

The Scarlet Woman’s Sexpose #2: Explaining feminism to men - an examination of privelege


**trigger warning: descriptions of rape

Searching the feminism tag on tumblr I came accross this question, from the following user:


I’ll admit I don’t know much about feminism, or activism or anything like that. I’m all for gender equality and will admit the world is more geared toward men. Its true I cant argue with that. But I’ve seen my fair share of sexism that goes in womens favor as well. And also women get away with quite a bit. I dont know what it is women go through because I’m not a woman, I’ve listened to a lot of them speak. Even took a womens studies class to further my understanding.( Two guys in the class, myself and another guy, he dropped so I was alone…WOW) But mainly my reasoning for this entry is wondering what is it feminism is fighting for. It seems as if in my opinion that whenever something goes wrong, its a mans fault or, its because of something male dominated.

Is the point of feminism to overthrow what is seen as Male rule or, make things equal. Every entry I read dealing with the subject is blaming men for just about any and everything, also it seems like its just pure hatred. Women get mad at me for holding the door for them now. I dont understand it. I’m sorry I was brought up being taught to protect women, not because they arent able, but if you see a woman unable to do something strength wise, or just if you can help, I feel you should help. Id help any man just the same, and I have helped both genders on many occasions without expectation of any compensation at all. Thats just the way I am. I guess I just want a better understanding of it all. 

This is a really common question that I hear from guys, and I thought I would take some time to answer it. The question manifests itself in different ways - what is this ’feminism’? isn’t it just about man hating though? What’s your deal anyway?

So what follows is an explanation of feminism, for men. It is comprehensive, so if you’re a tl;dr, this may not be for you. But try anyways! Because some of y’all need to be schooled.

I have met a ton of guys who are inherently suspicious about feminism, sometimes without even being able to explain why. I can tell you why - it’s because if you are a male (this intensifies if you are a WHITE male), you’ve got something I don’t have. You may not even know you have it - in fact, you most likely don’t. In the way that you are continually breathing but can’t see and don’t ever stop to wonder about the air in front of you, this exists around you. It’s called privelege.

Men are priveleged in the world in a way that women have never been. It is unearned - you didn’t do anything for it, you didn’t earn it, you just have it. Just because you’re a man, you have it. You were born with it, but unlike a disease or illness that doctors can spot right away, privelege is invisible. Probably no one would have told you about it or talked to you about it. You may have gone your entire life up until this moment without having ever heard about it. And yet it has been as much a part of your life as breathing, unseen but at the same time, entirely present.

Now, don’t stop reading! No one is blaming you for anything (yet). Because even though I’m telling you that you have this thing, we haven’t explored what privelege is yet. The standard resource on privelege is a text by Peggy McIntosh called ‘White Privelege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack’. It’s been used for a long time to explain the ways in which white persons are inherently but unconsciously priveleged over people of colour, and the ways in which most white people are completely unaware of this fact.

So reading that you may have realized that ‘privelege’ isn’t just for men. Lots of people have privelege! If you’re a white male or female, you have white privelege over people of colour, for example. As a white female, I have inherent and unearned privelege over women of colour. What we’re talking about today is specifically male privelege. Our society is built upon these invisible power hierarchies and every day we unconciously perpetuate them. There are a couple things about privelege that it’s important to understand:

1. Privelege is not your fault, and it’s not inherently bad.

The following passage is from a really great article on privelege written by livejournal user brown_betty called ‘A Primer on Privelege: What it is and what it isn’t’ :

Privilege is not: About you, the individual. Privilege is not your fault. Privilege is not anything you’ve done, or thought, or said. It may have allowed you to do, or think, or say things, but it’s not those things, and it’s not because of those things. Privilege is not about taking advantage, or cheating, although privilege may make this easier. Privilege is not negated. I can’t balance my white privilege against my female disadvantage and come out neutral. Privilege is not something you can be exempt from by having had a difficult life. Privilege is not inherently bad. It really isn’t.

See? I told you! Almost everyone is the world has SOME kind of privelege over other people. Are you able bodied? Your are priveleged over disabled people. Are you able to go into a restaraunt and order whatever you want? You are priveleged over people with severe food allergies, celiac disease, and other serious gastro-intestinal problems. Sounds like a funny example, but I want to highlight the different kinds of privelege that exist - some that seem mundane, and some that don’t.

Read more after the jump!

Read More

(via tenderwave)


My Statistics lecturer often likes to make random little asides during class.

Lecturer: Okay, so this graph shows a plot that is even and linear - it is what we’d call “homoscedastic”. This other graph, as you can see, is heavily skewed on either side, like an hourglass - we’d call this “heteroscedastic”. And apparently, this is the only time when being “hetero” is a bad thing.

(Submitted by tetheredstrings)