1. passius:

    selucha: passius:

    The U.S. military is far and away the world’s largest polluter, and until we acknowledge that fact and take a firm stance against the drones, bombs, and tanks with which our elites dominate the world, the planet will continue to be destroyed regardless of…

    If we’re comparing every conceivable entity in the world, that’s true. But claiming that my argument is disproven by China having higher pollution than the US military is like claiming that Kevin Durant didn’t lead the NBA in points last season because the Sacramento Kings scored more: you can’t compare players and teams, just as you can’t compare institutions with countries.

     

  2. The U.S. military is far and away the world’s largest polluter, and until we acknowledge that fact and take a firm stance against the drones, bombs, and tanks with which our elites dominate the world, the planet will continue to be destroyed regardless of how many “eco-friendly” products you buy. Happy Earth Day, basta ya del imperialismo yanqui!

     

  3. I actually own two fedoras and it’s too bad MRAs gave them a bad rap because it’s definitely a look I can pull off

     
  4. unhistorical:

    Gabriel García Márquez Dead: Nobel Prize-Winning Author Dies At 87 (TIMENew York Times)

    Colombian Nobel laureate Gabriel García Márquez was the author of One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967), Autumn of the Patriarch (1975), Love in the Time of Cholera (1985), in addition to many other novels, short stories, and non-fiction works. In 1982 he received the Nobel Prize in Literature for “his novels and short stories, in which the fantastic and the realistic are combined in a richly composed world of imagination, reflecting a continent’s life and conflicts.” García Márquez, only the fourth of six Latin Americans to be awarded the literature prize since its inception in 1901, lamented: “they have taken into account the literature of the sub-continent and have awarded me as a way of awarding all of this literature.” In his acceptance speech, entitled “The Solitude of Latin America”, García Márquez addressed the postcolonial struggles of Latin American nations, and the willing embrace by European institutions of Latin American cultural expression but not its social realities:

    Latin America neither wants, nor has any reason, to be a pawn without a will of its own; nor is it merely wishful thinking that its quest for independence and originality should become a Western aspiration. However, the navigational advances that have narrowed such distances between our Americas and Europe seem, conversely, to have accentuated our cultural remoteness. Why is the originality so readily granted us in literature so mistrustfully denied us in our difficult attempts at social change? Why think that the social justice sought by progressive Europeans for their own countries cannot also be a goal for Latin America, with different methods for dissimilar conditions? 

    I just started reading my first García Márquez book like 2 weeks ago. Que descanse en paz nuestro querido Gabo, un grande de Nuestramérica.

    (via fuegosdeoctubree)

     

  5. dinner tonight: chimichurri steak, plantains, pinto beans and tortillas. viva latinoamerica unida.

     

  6. When I eat Mexican food I don’t use napkins, I just wipe my hands off on my tortillas and not only does it help the environment but it results in far more delicious tortillas

     

  7. in tumblr-speak, the colloquial phrase “take a chill pill” apparently translates to “I think you have a mental illness” rather than the more common English translation, “take a chill pill.”

     
  8. ésta sí es mi roooooolaaaaaaaaaa compitas

     
     

  9. I appreciate the few thoughtful responses (en particular las dos que me llegaron en español) I got to my question earlier, though ultimately I’m disappointed that not only was the question not ultimately answered by those to whom it was posed, but the responses generally confirmed my suspicions: the opposition to gender-critical politics is not to the actual ideas, but rather a quasi-McCarthyist attitude toward radical feminists which treats any statement with disdain if it even sounds like something they might say. 

    The question I posed didn’t mention anything about radical feminists, yet most of the responses I got were not defenses of expanding gender vs. abolishing it (as requested), but knee-jerk responses denouncing radfems for this or that reason. Whether they are valid reasons or not is beside the point here: we’re focusing on their analysis, after all, not their attitudes.

    Folks should reflect on that. Why is the foundation of postmodern gender theory so hard to defend on its own merits in the face of critique? Why is its ideological framework so brittle that it collapses without a radfem bogey(wo)man to hold it up? Why is your first reaction to a very easy question to attack your opponent, rather than to uphold and explain the truthfulness of your own analysis?

    Back to Latin America blogging now, gracias a todas las seguidoras y todos los seguidores hispanohablantes que aguantaron este breve interludio. :-)

     

  10. class-snuggle:

    beautifulhorsemeat:

    why are men…. men. how can you possibly given a full understanding of how patriarchy works continue to associate yourself with masculinity how could anyone in good conscience self identify as male this isnt even a rhetorical question like…. why are you doing that

    I really don’t think the answer as to why the male gender continues to exist is to be found through asking why a bunch of people have individually chosen to uphold it. As much as modern activist culture likes to act otherwise, the existence of oppressive social forces (patriarchy, capitalism, etc.) is not determined by individuals deciding to participate or abstain from them; likewise the decision to participate or abstain from these systems usually isn’t a free choice made by people rationally weighing competing options and choosing the most universally beneficial one. It’s more often determined by social and economic pressures that the individual has little control over. It’s not even really useful to imagine a hypothetical situation in which the male gender (or the capitalist class, or any other oppressive group) independently decides to abolish itself, because that situation will literally never arise. These systems exist because they bring social and material benefit to a privileged class of people, and they will only be abolished when the mechanisms that allow for that benefit (particularly the division of labour) are themselves abolished.

     

  11. fuegosdeoctubree asked: bueno me vengo a sumar al debate de genero que se armo (?) Primero y principal yo personalmente coincido muchisimo con el feminismo radical y definitivamente es el que mas me representa. Segundo yo veo mucha violencia de los dos lados. Es decir veo mujeres trans que responden a posts elaborados con buena intencion y sin insultos por mujeres radicales con DIE CIS SCUM y obviamente no estoy de acuerdo pero por otro lado lo veo a la inversa, es decir feministas radicales en tumblr 1/3

    …respondiendo SHUT YOU’RE A MAN a cualquier aporte que las mujeres trans hacen sobre el tema del genero que difiera del de ellas. Respecto a la gente que se identifica como “genderqueer” y esas cosas honestamente me parece irrelevante, es decir, no ayuda a abolir al genero pero tampoco me parece que este mal. En general creo que deberia haber un foco mayor en la violencia institucional de los hombres hacia las mujeres que en si alguien de 14 años se quiere llamar genderqueer o no.

    Por otro lado el tema de la comunidad queer atacando a la comunidad feminista me parece que es algo muy de tumblr y no se si da en los Estados Unidos en general. En mi experiencia en Argentina a las mujeres trans involucradas con las politica no les molesta que se considere el aborto “un derecho de la mujer” ni demandan estar siempre en primer plano y las feministas en general apoyan que las mujeres trans sean respetadas como personas juridicas, no hay un conflicto como el que veo en tumblr

    Gracias compañera por este aporte! Let me quote a few sections here:

    "I personally agree a lot with radical feminism and it is definitely the one that represents me the most. But I see a lot of violence on both sides…"

    "With respect to people who identify as ‘genderqueer,’ these things honestly seem irrelevant to me, I mean, it doesn’t help abolish gender but it doesn’t seem like it’s that bad either. In general I think we should focus more on the institutional violence of men against women…"

    "In my experience in Argentina, politically-involved transwomen don’t have a problem considering abortion a ‘woman’s right’ nor do they always demand to be a top priority, and feminists in general support transwomen being respected as legal persons…"

     

  12. Anonymous asked: men gender should be abolished everything should just exist in a feminine/woman spectrum, so much more whole(not referring to anything biological)

    I’m not sure I understand how gender would exist if masculinity were abolished… What would this spectrum look like?

     

  13. Anonymous asked: are you serious right now? gender critical women are not violent? dude have you ever hear of Cathy Brennan? explain to me how she is not violent when she doesn't want trans people to have health care? How about Janice Raymond? She wrote a book saying that "All transsexuals rape women's bodies". Are you really saying a 14 year old girl on tumblr saying die cis scum is worse than those women? I'm not trying to be rude here sorry if I came out that way but I don't really get it.

    I never actually said that though. I assume you got this from my post in Spanish, but I’d go back and re-read more carefully for the nuance. But regardless, this doesn’t really answer my question.

    On a separate but related note, I think we should judge ideas by their best and most principled adherents, and that’s what I’m trying to do here. If I wanted to show everyone how wacky and aggressive the pro-gender crowd is, I could easily find a bunch of examples, but I’m not interested in being politically opportunistic. I want to hear a solid, coherent defense of expanding gender vs. abolishing it. Send me a few sentences, a few paragraphs, hell, even a link to an article which has a better argument than “gender critical is bad because some radfems say mean things.”

     

  14. I do not know that gender could be “abolished” or what that would even entail.

    It’s definitely a long-term project, even abolishing capitalism isn’t something that just happens like Revolution, BAM! but happens over a protracted period after there’s been a transference of political power to those that are committed to that social transformation. I don’t want to speak too much on this issue, but I think more than “what can we be doing to abolish gender in our day to day lives?” we need to think about what kind of movement will be capable of taking power and instituting the social changes which abolish prescribed roles for males and females; this system certainly isn’t going to do that. But on a micro level, I do think refraining from referring to certain behaviors as “masculine” and “feminine” helps somewhat. But beyond that I’d like to defer to others (i.e. women) who have thought through this more than I have.

     

  15. Anonymous asked: You're not going to get the answer you want because your followers (me included) agree with you. If you hang up with a gender critical group you're not going to see the other side of the issue

    The thing is, I actually know a lot of people on various sides to this issue, many of whom follow me on tumblr and some of whom I trust to be able to have an adult discussion that doesn’t descend into name-calling and unfounded accusations. I’m trying to draw out a principled argument for expanding vs. abolishing gender from at least one of them.