Photo 23 Apr 77,775 notes lacigreen:

i’ve worked with a lot of universities that use the “consent is sexy” motto, and i get why they do it (it’s a marketing thing).  but i do think it downplays the absolute necessity of consent.  consent isn’t important because it makes things sexier.  it’s important because it prevents rape.

lacigreen:

i’ve worked with a lot of universities that use the “consent is sexy” motto, and i get why they do it (it’s a marketing thing).  but i do think it downplays the absolute necessity of consent.  consent isn’t important because it makes things sexier.  it’s important because it prevents rape.

(Source: screaminfuschiacreations)

Video 23 Apr 25,140 notes

lightspeedsound:

bonefromthevoid:

hoaxzine:

verbalprivilege:

fromonesurvivortoanother:

ood:

BIG PHOTOSETS FOREVER FOR THEY ARE MUCH HARDER TO IGNORE / a lot of these don’t have hi-res versions available, but i still want to post them

This was not an exaggeration. The government ignored the issue of HIV/AIDS for years before anything was done. Gay and Queer communities had to form their own clinics because no government agencies cared for them. Back then, being diagnosed was equivalent to a death sentence or extreme debt and poor quality of life/a significantly shortened lifespan.

Things got so desperate that people literally had “Die-Ins”— in contemporary usage this refers to masses of people simulating death in order to protest something (like the War in Iraq). In this case, however, fatally sick people would literally lie down in public places and protest with what little energy they had left until they died. There is some footage of a church Die-In in the documentary Beyond Stonewall.  The middle image here of that person’s jacket is not an extreme political statement; it’s what people had to do because they had no other options.

wow.


never forget

queer politics aren’t all hrc t-shirts and shiny lobbying. So many people have already forgotten this extremely recent history.

never forget that AIDS actually was originally called “GRID” as in “Gay-Related Immune Deficiency” and it took straight ppl dying from blood transfusions for people to actually consider this a crisis worth fixing.

Photo 14 Apr 6,775 notes parkkennypark:

The Man on the Train
This is an illustration I did for my friend, Dai’s, PhD thesis. A part of his thesis involved a study around how some gay men (particularly those of a minority status) negotiate being gay outside of mainstream gay culture. One story that really stood out to me as being quite unique and touching involved a middle-aged fellow who has never been intimate with another man, doesn’t necessarily identify as being gay, but spends his days knitting baby socks on park benches and on the train as a way to perform his ‘gayness’. As he still lives at home with an extremely conservative family this is essentially the only way he knows to express his sexuality.
Kojima, D. (2014). Migrant intimacies: Mobilities-in-difference and basue tactics in queer Asian diasporas. Anthropologica 56(1), pp.33-44.

parkkennypark:

The Man on the Train

This is an illustration I did for my friend, Dai’s, PhD thesis. A part of his thesis involved a study around how some gay men (particularly those of a minority status) negotiate being gay outside of mainstream gay culture. One story that really stood out to me as being quite unique and touching involved a middle-aged fellow who has never been intimate with another man, doesn’t necessarily identify as being gay, but spends his days knitting baby socks on park benches and on the train as a way to perform his ‘gayness’. As he still lives at home with an extremely conservative family this is essentially the only way he knows to express his sexuality.

Kojima, D. (2014). Migrant intimacies: Mobilities-in-difference and basue tactics in queer Asian diasporas. Anthropologica 56(1), pp.33-44.

Photo 11 Apr 17 notes descentintotyranny:

Their lives weren’t worth 57 cents to GM
Elizabeth Schulte reports on the terrible toll from corporate negligence at General Motors—and recounts her own experience with the continuing recall runaround.
Apr. 8 2014
FIFTY-SEVEN cents. That’s what it would have cost General Motors (GM) to change a faulty part to blame for crashes that have killed at least 13 people.
The calculation comes from a 2005 internal company document obtained by congressional investigators, who provided the evidence for an April 1 congressional hearing on GM.
The automaker has been forced to announce a recall of some 2.6 million cars with faulty ignition switches that could turn off the engine—as well as disable the air bags, power steering and power brakes—at any moment. But company records also show that GM knew about the problem much earlier, and did nothing about it—choosing to gamble with the lives of car owners, rather than the company’s bottom line.
On February 13, GM announced the recall of several compact cars, including the Chevrolet Cobalt. Over the month, more vehicles were added to the list. On March 28, GM expanded the recall to more recent models—because some 90,000 defective switches had been installed as replacement parts in newer vehicles.
Today, six GM models—2005-10 Cobalts, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstices, 2007-10 Pontiac G5s and Saturn Skys, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHRs and 2003-7 Saturn Ions—are now part of the recall.
The problem can be traced to a part in the vehicle’s ignition switch—the switch indent plunger—that is less “springy” than it should be, making it possible for the ignition key to turn off the engine if it’s jostled. The part is about half an inch long and costs just 57 cents, according to comments at the April 1 hearing by Rep. Diana DeGette, based on the work of investigators.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GM’S RECALL comes a decade too late for Amber Marie Rose, a 16-year-old from Maryland who died on July 29, 2005, after her Chevrolet Cobalt crashed into a tree. The ignition switch had shut down the car’s electrical system, and the air bags failed to deploy.
A little over a year before Amber’s accident—although “accident” is the wrong word for this act of deliberate negligence—company officials rejected an internal proposal to fix the problem in the Cobalt, because it would be too costly and take too long.
In December 2005, GM even sent its dealers a bulletin saying the ignition in Cobalts might turn off when “the driver is short and has a large and/or heavy key chain.” GM told dealers that “the customer should be advised of this potential and should…[remove] unessential items from their key chain.”
But GM kept manufacturing the cars, and it didn’t issue a recall.
Another “accident” took place on October 24, 2006, when 18-year-old Natasha Weigel and 15-year-old Amy Beskau were killed after their 2005 Cobalt went off the road in St. Croix County, Wis. An investigation showed the ignition switch was in the accessory position at the time of the crash, meaning the car didn’t have power at the moment of impact—no brakes, no steering and no airbags.
Still, GM saw no reason to recall its cars.
In 2010 in Georgia, the 2005 Chevy Cobalt Brooke Melton was driving suddenly shut off, causing the crash that killed her. The accident report said she lost control, was hit by another car and ended up in a creek. It was her 29th birthday.
When her family hired someone to investigate what happened, engineer Mark Hood bought a replacement switch from the dealership and noticed something strange. The switch was different from the switch in Melton’s car, yet it had the same identification number: 10392423.
Hood had discovered that GM and its parts supplier Delphi had changed the part some time in 2006 or 2007, but kept the change quiet. In other words, the carmaker identified the deadly problem with the car, quietly changed the part and told no one—including the owners of the cars with defective switches.
"I knew the minute I kissed her forehead, her cold forehead in the ICU, I knew there was something wrong with the car," Brooke’s father Ken told an Atlanta news station after hearing about the recall.
GM stopped production of the Cobalt in 2010, but there are still more than half a million of the cars out there.
Read More

descentintotyranny:

Their lives weren’t worth 57 cents to GM

Elizabeth Schulte reports on the terrible toll from corporate negligence at General Motors—and recounts her own experience with the continuing recall runaround.

Apr. 8 2014

FIFTY-SEVEN cents. That’s what it would have cost General Motors (GM) to change a faulty part to blame for crashes that have killed at least 13 people.

The calculation comes from a 2005 internal company document obtained by congressional investigators, who provided the evidence for an April 1 congressional hearing on GM.

The automaker has been forced to announce a recall of some 2.6 million cars with faulty ignition switches that could turn off the engine—as well as disable the air bags, power steering and power brakes—at any moment. But company records also show that GM knew about the problem much earlier, and did nothing about it—choosing to gamble with the lives of car owners, rather than the company’s bottom line.

On February 13, GM announced the recall of several compact cars, including the Chevrolet Cobalt. Over the month, more vehicles were added to the list. On March 28, GM expanded the recall to more recent models—because some 90,000 defective switches had been installed as replacement parts in newer vehicles.

Today, six GM models—2005-10 Cobalts, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstices, 2007-10 Pontiac G5s and Saturn Skys, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHRs and 2003-7 Saturn Ions—are now part of the recall.

The problem can be traced to a part in the vehicle’s ignition switch—the switch indent plunger—that is less “springy” than it should be, making it possible for the ignition key to turn off the engine if it’s jostled. The part is about half an inch long and costs just 57 cents, according to comments at the April 1 hearing by Rep. Diana DeGette, based on the work of investigators.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

GM’S RECALL comes a decade too late for Amber Marie Rose, a 16-year-old from Maryland who died on July 29, 2005, after her Chevrolet Cobalt crashed into a tree. The ignition switch had shut down the car’s electrical system, and the air bags failed to deploy.

A little over a year before Amber’s accident—although “accident” is the wrong word for this act of deliberate negligence—company officials rejected an internal proposal to fix the problem in the Cobalt, because it would be too costly and take too long.

In December 2005, GM even sent its dealers a bulletin saying the ignition in Cobalts might turn off when “the driver is short and has a large and/or heavy key chain.” GM told dealers that “the customer should be advised of this potential and should…[remove] unessential items from their key chain.”

But GM kept manufacturing the cars, and it didn’t issue a recall.

Another “accident” took place on October 24, 2006, when 18-year-old Natasha Weigel and 15-year-old Amy Beskau were killed after their 2005 Cobalt went off the road in St. Croix County, Wis. An investigation showed the ignition switch was in the accessory position at the time of the crash, meaning the car didn’t have power at the moment of impact—no brakes, no steering and no airbags.

Still, GM saw no reason to recall its cars.

In 2010 in Georgia, the 2005 Chevy Cobalt Brooke Melton was driving suddenly shut off, causing the crash that killed her. The accident report said she lost control, was hit by another car and ended up in a creek. It was her 29th birthday.

When her family hired someone to investigate what happened, engineer Mark Hood bought a replacement switch from the dealership and noticed something strange. The switch was different from the switch in Melton’s car, yet it had the same identification number: 10392423.

Hood had discovered that GM and its parts supplier Delphi had changed the part some time in 2006 or 2007, but kept the change quiet. In other words, the carmaker identified the deadly problem with the car, quietly changed the part and told no one—including the owners of the cars with defective switches.

"I knew the minute I kissed her forehead, her cold forehead in the ICU, I knew there was something wrong with the car," Brooke’s father Ken told an Atlanta news station after hearing about the recall.

GM stopped production of the Cobalt in 2010, but there are still more than half a million of the cars out there.

Read More

Photo 11 Apr 18 notes descentintotyranny:

Mychal Denzel Smith — The intellectual defense of sexual harassment (Hint: there isn’t one)
Apr. 10 2014
I read a piece in The Guardian yesterday that said sexual harassment is bad but sometimes it’s not actually sexual harassment just sexual liberation being misinterpreted. I didn’t know that this needed to be said, but apparently it does: there is no intellectual argument to be made in the defense of sexual harassment.
Really. Try as you might, mostly cisgender heterosexual men, but the bottom line is you can’t theorize your way into a world where harassment of any kind is acceptable. Oh, and you will try. I know. Because the more pushback there is to the daily occurrences of street/sexual harassment, the more (y)our privilege becomes threatened, and the more that frightens many of us.
Most often, the defense wades into the territory of human attraction, a field most of us seek to understand but are hopelessly lost in when seeking answers. The thinking goes that what is “perceived” as harassment is actually flirtation. The objectification and sexualization of women’s bodies is an attempt at mating. These can be clumsy attempts, sure, but that’s only because our attraction overrides any sense of boundaries or social grace. We are beholden to lust. 
So, the increasingly thin thinking goes, much of what is being called harassment is not something we need to be worried about. If women simply looked at it differently — as a compliment, as a remark on their level of attraction — they would see that what they’ve been complaining about is the evolution of human mating rituals. It’s not sexism. It’s harmless flirting that’s being discouraged by feminists who are overreacting to displays of overt sexuality. They are downright prudish.
And anyway, haven’t feminist been fighting for sexual liberation? Shouldn’t we all be free to directly proposition one another for sex, regardless of gender, because that’s what feminists have been arguing all along? Why call it harassment when it’s really just the logical conclusion of the sexual revolution?
If we’re still conflating harassment with attraction, then the point has not been made clear enough: harassment is about power, not about sex. When making lewd comments to a woman he doesn’t know on the street, a man is not flirting. He’s asserting his dominance. He’s reminding that woman of her “place.” He’s performing a masculinity based on control. This isn’t sexual liberation.
Which, let’s talk about being sexually liberated. That isn’t a license to approach any woman, anywhere, in any way that a man sees fit. The way toward liberation is not to ignore the power dynamics between the genders. We solve nothing by choosing to be blind to them. There will be men who are attracted to women. Likewise, there will be women who are attracted to men. Sometimes, this attraction will be purely sexual and both parties will want to act on that attraction. Great. Congrats to all parties involved. That’s not an excuse for sexual harassment.
The thing is, you can’t make the issue of sexual harassment into an intellectual exercise. It’s not about matching wits, or theory, or citing Freud, or whatever happened in Good Will Hunting. Sexual harassment is a lived experience, often traumatic, at its root degrading, and sometimes frightening. There is no theory that absolves one from that.
It’s at this point where the intellectual defenders say, “How will a man know what is considered harassment?” You could start by reading a book, smart guy. But within the context of a real life social interaction, there are always cues, verbal and physical, that if you haven’t picked up on, you’re probably doing a bad job at flirting anyway. Or, you’ve convinced yourself that your presence is a gift to all women and they all find you irresistible and their every action is an invitation. In that case, you’ve drank enough Kool-Aid from the fountain of privilege to last you through at least four divorces and multiple sexual harassment suits. 
Boundaries will be determined by all parties involved, so yes, there’s no one size fits all rule. With consent, you can play with these dynamics and roles and power imbalances as you see fit. Do what makes you two (three, four, five…) happy.But it’s of the utmost importance, as a man interested in approaching a woman you don’t know, that you’re sensitive to the fact that she has likely been harassed, degraded, objectified, and name-called by a good number of men just because she exists. In this context, no, it’s probably not a good idea to start out with “hey, you wanna bone?” But I’m not here to give flirting tips. Figure that shit out on your own. My point here is to say that we can’t decide that simply because human attraction exists, there must be an intellectual component to sexual harassment that should be taken into consideration. There isn’t. Harassment is harassment.
How do you know what it is? She’ll tell you.

descentintotyranny:

Mychal Denzel Smith — The intellectual defense of sexual harassment (Hint: there isn’t one)

Apr. 10 2014

I read a piece in The Guardian yesterday that said sexual harassment is bad but sometimes it’s not actually sexual harassment just sexual liberation being misinterpreted. I didn’t know that this needed to be said, but apparently it does: there is no intellectual argument to be made in the defense of sexual harassment.

Really. Try as you might, mostly cisgender heterosexual men, but the bottom line is you can’t theorize your way into a world where harassment of any kind is acceptable. Oh, and you will try. I know. Because the more pushback there is to the daily occurrences of street/sexual harassment, the more (y)our privilege becomes threatened, and the more that frightens many of us.

Most often, the defense wades into the territory of human attraction, a field most of us seek to understand but are hopelessly lost in when seeking answers. The thinking goes that what is “perceived” as harassment is actually flirtation. The objectification and sexualization of women’s bodies is an attempt at mating. These can be clumsy attempts, sure, but that’s only because our attraction overrides any sense of boundaries or social grace. We are beholden to lust. 

So, the increasingly thin thinking goes, much of what is being called harassment is not something we need to be worried about. If women simply looked at it differently — as a compliment, as a remark on their level of attraction — they would see that what they’ve been complaining about is the evolution of human mating rituals. It’s not sexism. It’s harmless flirting that’s being discouraged by feminists who are overreacting to displays of overt sexuality. They are downright prudish.

And anyway, haven’t feminist been fighting for sexual liberation? Shouldn’t we all be free to directly proposition one another for sex, regardless of gender, because that’s what feminists have been arguing all along? Why call it harassment when it’s really just the logical conclusion of the sexual revolution?

If we’re still conflating harassment with attraction, then the point has not been made clear enough: harassment is about power, not about sex. When making lewd comments to a woman he doesn’t know on the street, a man is not flirting. He’s asserting his dominance. He’s reminding that woman of her “place.” He’s performing a masculinity based on control. This isn’t sexual liberation.

Which, let’s talk about being sexually liberated. That isn’t a license to approach any woman, anywhere, in any way that a man sees fit. The way toward liberation is not to ignore the power dynamics between the genders. We solve nothing by choosing to be blind to them. There will be men who are attracted to women. Likewise, there will be women who are attracted to men. Sometimes, this attraction will be purely sexual and both parties will want to act on that attraction. Great. Congrats to all parties involved. That’s not an excuse for sexual harassment.

The thing is, you can’t make the issue of sexual harassment into an intellectual exercise. It’s not about matching wits, or theory, or citing Freud, or whatever happened in Good Will Hunting. Sexual harassment is a lived experience, often traumatic, at its root degrading, and sometimes frightening. There is no theory that absolves one from that.

It’s at this point where the intellectual defenders say, “How will a man know what is considered harassment?” You could start by reading a book, smart guy. But within the context of a real life social interaction, there are always cues, verbal and physical, that if you haven’t picked up on, you’re probably doing a bad job at flirting anyway. Or, you’ve convinced yourself that your presence is a gift to all women and they all find you irresistible and their every action is an invitation. In that case, you’ve drank enough Kool-Aid from the fountain of privilege to last you through at least four divorces and multiple sexual harassment suits.

Boundaries will be determined by all parties involved, so yes, there’s no one size fits all rule. With consent, you can play with these dynamics and roles and power imbalances as you see fit. Do what makes you two (three, four, five…) happy.But it’s of the utmost importance, as a man interested in approaching a woman you don’t know, that you’re sensitive to the fact that she has likely been harassed, degraded, objectified, and name-called by a good number of men just because she exists. In this context, no, it’s probably not a good idea to start out with “hey, you wanna bone?” But I’m not here to give flirting tips. Figure that shit out on your own. My point here is to say that we can’t decide that simply because human attraction exists, there must be an intellectual component to sexual harassment that should be taken into consideration. There isn’t. Harassment is harassment.

How do you know what it is? She’ll tell you.

Photo 11 Apr 19 notes androphilia:

Oakland Spent $74 Million Settling 417 Police Brutality Lawsuits | Oakland Police Beat
Quote 11 Apr 264 notes

The first time it was reported that our friends were being butchered there was a cry of horror. Then a hundred were butchered. But when a thousand were butchered and there was no end to the butchery, a blanket of silence spread.
When evil-doing comes like falling rain, nobody calls out “stop!”

When crimes begin to pile up they become invisible. When sufferings become unendurable the cries are no longer heard. The cries, too, fall like rain in summer.

— Bertolt Brecht (via ode-to-psyche)
Photo 11 Apr 55 notes theolduvaigorge:

Time running out for rarest primate


Rescue bid launched to save Hainan gibbon from becoming first ape driven to extinction by humans.


by Daniel Cressey
“China’s wildlife conservation efforts are under scrutiny as scientists battle to save a species found only in a tiny corner of an island in the South China Sea. The Hainan gibbon is the world’s rarest primate and its long-term survival is in jeopardy, according to an analysis.
Only 23 to 25 of the animals are thought to remain, clustered in less than 20 square kilometres of forest in China’s Hainan Island. The species (Nomascus hainanus), which numbered more than 2,000 in the late 1950s, has been devastated through the destruction of habitat from logging, and by poaching. Extinction would give the gibbon the unwelcome distinction of being the first ape to be wiped out because of human actions. To hammer out a plan to save it, international primate researchers convened an emergency summit in Hainan last month.
“With the right conservation management, it is still possible to conserve and recover the Hainan gibbon population,” says meeting co-chair Samuel Turvey, who studies animal extinctions at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). “But given the current highly perilous state of the species, we cannot afford to wait any longer before initiating a more proactive and coordinated recovery programme.” He adds that the meeting was a successful first step towards saving the animal and that a plan of action is being finalized.
The plan will be based in part on a ‘population viability analysis’ that models the potential size of the gibbon population in coming decades for a range of different scenarios. It is being drawn up by Kathy Traylor Holzer, a conservation planner at the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group in Apple Valley, Minnesota. “It’s one of the smallest populations I’ve ever worked with,” says Traylor Holzer. “That number — in one place — is extremely scary.”
Preliminary modelling, which considers factors such as breeding success, habitat changes and natural threats, suggests that the Hainan gibbon may be safe from extinction in the next couple of decades. But its restricted habitat means that a single catastrophic event, such as a typhoon or a disease outbreak, could wipe out the minuscule population. Furthermore, low genetic diversity in the remaining animals could result in unhealthy offspring because of inbreeding. To better understand the genetics of the animals, ZSL researchers are conducting DNA sequencing using collected faeces" (read more).
(Source: Nature)

theolduvaigorge:

Time running out for rarest primate

Rescue bid launched to save Hainan gibbon from becoming first ape driven to extinction by humans.

  • by Daniel Cressey

China’s wildlife conservation efforts are under scrutiny as scientists battle to save a species found only in a tiny corner of an island in the South China Sea. The Hainan gibbon is the world’s rarest primate and its long-term survival is in jeopardy, according to an analysis.

Only 23 to 25 of the animals are thought to remain, clustered in less than 20 square kilometres of forest in China’s Hainan Island. The species (Nomascus hainanus), which numbered more than 2,000 in the late 1950s, has been devastated through the destruction of habitat from logging, and by poaching. Extinction would give the gibbon the unwelcome distinction of being the first ape to be wiped out because of human actions. To hammer out a plan to save it, international primate researchers convened an emergency summit in Hainan last month.

“With the right conservation management, it is still possible to conserve and recover the Hainan gibbon population,” says meeting co-chair Samuel Turvey, who studies animal extinctions at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). “But given the current highly perilous state of the species, we cannot afford to wait any longer before initiating a more proactive and coordinated recovery programme.” He adds that the meeting was a successful first step towards saving the animal and that a plan of action is being finalized.

The plan will be based in part on a ‘population viability analysis’ that models the potential size of the gibbon population in coming decades for a range of different scenarios. It is being drawn up by Kathy Traylor Holzer, a conservation planner at the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group in Apple Valley, Minnesota. “It’s one of the smallest populations I’ve ever worked with,” says Traylor Holzer. “That number — in one place — is extremely scary.”

Preliminary modelling, which considers factors such as breeding success, habitat changes and natural threats, suggests that the Hainan gibbon may be safe from extinction in the next couple of decades. But its restricted habitat means that a single catastrophic event, such as a typhoon or a disease outbreak, could wipe out the minuscule population. Furthermore, low genetic diversity in the remaining animals could result in unhealthy offspring because of inbreeding. To better understand the genetics of the animals, ZSL researchers are conducting DNA sequencing using collected faeces" (read more).

(Source: Nature)

Link 11 Apr 14 notes No One Helped A Muslim Teen When A Man Spat On Her, Called Her A Terrorist: Reports | HuffPost Religion»
Video 6 Apr 308,163 notes

emmaloserface:

I HAVENT HAD IT IN YEARS OH GOD


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.