1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
qmisato
qmisato

i never noticed until recently, but the episodes where ritsuko forgoes her signature red lipstick (ep 5, 8, 12) coincide with the days gendo is off-post, conducting business overseas, or otherwise awol. 

More you might like

taureantalism
alyesque alyesque

The whole point of class analysis (materialist analysis) is that it destabilize notions of destiny and stability. The proletariate is not a group defined biologically or through some innate aspect of the body itself but through their position within a given historical moment and contradiction. As materialists, its obvious to us that any attempt to inscribe the identity of the proletariat as natural is ideology. Whether its claims of being less intelligent, being more lazy, whatever, it is all a means of naturalizing the class position to render it destiny. All such justifications are means for reinforcing the domination of the proletariat. 

What Wittig tells us is that this is true of women as a class as well. An attempt to find a stable biological or bodily basis for answering the question “Who is a woman” is a means of naturalizing the class status of women. The entire point of shifting from thinking of women as a pregiven group to thinking of women as a class is to shift our thought in such a way that we can challenge naturalizing ideologies of womanhood which are attempts to justify the domination of women.  Any debate that starts by asking “who counts as a woman in class analysis” misses the entire point of using materialist class analysis in the first place. We seek to displace and destroy gender and the coresponding class positions of man and woman. We won’t do that by endless arguing over definitions which themselves ideologically reinforce the divide. 

To be a materialist, to define women as a class, is to deny the logic of “okay but who counts as a woman” in the first place

Source: aly-semi-archived
saabirahlawrence

“Here’s the thing… People who complain about "political correctness”, for the most part, are just as guilty of having a “PC” mentality as those they stay bitching about. In truth, what’s happening isn’t that we’ve become more PC and sensitive as a society, we’re just seeing critical analysis on social issues being popularized for the first time in most of our lifetimes.”

j2ndson j2ndson

“White folks who have never really had to think in depth about race (because why would they in a part of the world where whiteness is basically the default for cultural and social normalcy?) are now being introduced to phrases like “white privilege” and “systemic racism” for the first time and they’re having the same knee-jerk reactionary, overly sensitive, whiny ass bitch-o-thons that they accuse those who “play the race card” of having. ‪#‎alllivesmatter‬ is absolutely a PC response to‪#‎blacklivesmatter‬… white folks are simply too busy being defensive and perpetually offended to consider that the lived experiences of POC in a world where, again whiteness is the standard, may just be different than anything they can fathom. Hell, white folks consider the race of a comic book (or otherwise fictional) character being changed from white to black/brown to be an act of political correctness (and “reverse racism”… but I ain’t got time to even get started on that bullshit), but in the view of POC it’s their reaction to it that’s PC. Shit, it ain’t our fault they take their overwhelming, virtually unlimited diverse media and pop culture representation for granted… so listen ‪#‎notallwhitepeople‬, you’ll have to excuse us if we just don’t really give a shit about your salty ass tears.

And the shit don’t stop at race (so don’t get all comfy negroidz and hotepazoidz)

Men (and women for that matter) who have been conditioned to see patriarchy as simply the natural order order things, are now seeing it discussed as an oppressive system for the first time and their/our PC response is to view feminism as misandry and go all ‪#‎notallmen‬ and shit rather than actually listen to what’s being expressed.

We’re seeing homosexuality more and more widely accepted as a biological reality and not a choice and we call that political correctness… because it must be right? I mean, if gays develope their sexuality the same way we heteros do and it’s not a result of choice or moral failing then suddenly our “it’s not natural/only a man and a woman can procreate/it’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” narrative is no longer just simple logic and rationale… it’s just fucking bigotry *gasp*

We’re simply not ready for discussions about empowerment, gender fluidity and the full spectrum of sexuality… it’s easier to take offense to it all and declare an all out “war on masculinity” and start breaking out the “straight pride” picket signs and shit.

And it goes on an on…
Christians claiming “persecution” (in a country where over %70 of the population still identify as Christian) everytime they see a new atheist think piece tearing down religion then turning around and accusing anyone who doesn’t choose to condemn all of Islam for the acts of few of being PC.

“Patriots” who regard even the most remote criticism of this country as “anti American” and go all “America: love it or GIT OUT!!!” don’t see themselves as PC… but they absolutely are.

In short (because I know, this rant is long as shit) these aren’t new issues folks… or even new conversations.

All this shit is just in your face and impossible to ignore now…

And yall sensitive, politically correct asses can’t handle it.

Peace.“-Zack Linly

fishingboatproceeds

stolethecookies asked:

What are your thoughts on the reading of Jay Gatsby as a black man passing for white? I know books belong to their readers, etc, but I am curious about what you think of this. There was a Salon article a while ago about this interpretation, discussing this interpretation and Professor Carlyle V. Thompson's analysis

fishingboatproceeds answered:

I think it’s an interesting reading, but I didn’t find anything in the Salon article particularly convincing. (I have not read the original paper.)

Gatsby is a novel (at least in part) about class in the United States, and of course race is one kind of privilege that factors in to class determinations in American social orders. But there are others: Wealth. Sex. Gender. Ancestry. Educational background. Language. (i.e., people who speak English as their first language are tremendously privileged in the U.S.) It’s true that the vast majority of African Americans will never be welcome on East Egg, but neither will the vast majority of trans people, or the vast majority of non-English-speaking immigrants. 

My worry with Thompson’s reading of Gatsby is that it essentializes a novel that is great precisely because of its inability to be nailed down. In England, you knew if you were a Lord or a peasant. In the U.S., you didn’t (and don’t), but class is still real and pervasive and limitings, pushing us all back ceaselessly into the past.

See this in the app Show more