Many of you already know or have picked up on the fact that I am biracial and identify as mixed-race. My mother is white and biological father was black. I have a lightened dark skin tone and long, dark brown curly hair. I also happen to have a first name that appears Middle Eastern in origin. I have been taken for Spanish-speaking, Pakistani, Greek, among many other ethnicities.
When I worked retail, I was a cashier and had to wear my first name on my nametag. Occasionally, I would have a customer ask me one of my most hated questions: “So, where are you from?” I know what they were really asking, and I know what they wanted me to say. Almost invariably I was met with disappointment when I told them that I was born in Chicago and am half-white, half-black.
I told my mother once how much this irritated me, and when I told her that I would rather tell people it’s none of their business, she seemed shocked, as if that were a completely over-the-top reaction to a perfectly “reasonable” question.
Thing is, it’s not a reasonable question. Because when you, a total stranger, ask me “what I am”, you are asking me to delve into my personal history when I don’t even know you. I don’t like having this question asked to me, especially in such a blunt way, because it is kind of invasive. I don’t mind telling people what my racial identity is, but to have somebody come up to you and immediately say, “So are you [insert nationality here]?” it’s really rather jarring. First of all, I don’t see how it has any bearing on my interaction with you, and second if you really NEED to know HOLY SHIT WHERE IS SHE FROM then please reevaluate the way you talk to people you don’t know. Please.
When you ask me, “Where are you from?” you are immediately assuming that in order to look the way I do, I must not have been born in the US, that I must be from somewhere else otherwise I would look “normal.” It’s hurtful in a way that’s very hard to describe to someone who’s never experienced this, and makes me feel like you’re immediately otherizing me.
If you can’t “figure out” my racial identity from a first glance at me, don’t freak out. Seriously. Don’t freak out. It is okay. You don’t need to know. I am not a guessing game and you don’t get brownie points with me if you get it right. I am not obligated to discuss my personal history with you and I am not obligated to satisfy your curiosity. I really am not. I don’t have to tell you why I look the way I do. Sure, I might decide I want to discuss my racial identity with someone once in a while. But that’s my call.
Yes. ^^^
You want to say “Hi” to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.
If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”
On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.
The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.
There’s a man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?
Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.
This man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual rapist, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s Rapist, and this particular Schrödinger’s Rapist has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a man who ignores a woman’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.
For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.
| — | an excerpt from Phaedra Starling’s “Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced” (via cuntlovin) |
Rape is not okay. RAPE IS NOT OKAY.
Sheepy gave you evidence of what he said. And YET YOU STILL DEFEND THIS GUY.
If a person has a mental illness, and he rapes someone. That doesn’t fucking make him a fucking okay person. He is obviously a fucking tool who needs to be chemically…
Google appears to have morphed from a corporation that proclaims, “Don’t be evil” to one insisting that users “Join the Borg.”
via AlterNet
May 20, 2012 In 1999, Scott McNealy, the former head of Sun MicroSystems, reportedly declared, “You have zero privacy anyway….Get over it.” He unintentionally let the proverbial cat out of the bag of the digital age.
In 2009, McNealy’s assessment was confirmed by Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt. In an interview with NBC’s Mario Bartiromo, he proclaimed, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Schmidt’s words have become Google’s new mantra. Welcome to 21st-century corporate morality.Now, a decade-plus later, McNealy’s prophetic words have take on a far more sinister significance than he probably intended. They are increasingly becoming the operating assumption of the digital corporate state. Whether going online, using a PC, smartphone, tablet or digital TV, users can no longer assume they have any privacy. In fact, users should assume they have absolutely no privacy.Every time you enter a term into Google’s search engine, check out a video on YouTube, send or receive an email through Gmail (including key words in the message) or even make a call or download information on an Android-based phone, even using a third party’s phone from AT&T or Verizon, your input will be captured, stored and processed by Google. Google users can’t opt out of its data harvesting procedure; the company reports that the new procedure does not apply to Google Wallet, the Chrome browser and Google Books.Google has been accused of hacking both Apple’s and Microsoft’s operating systems to further its data-capture practice. Jonathan Mayer, a Stanford researcher, discovered that Google could track a person’s usage of Apple’s Safari browser on an iPhone and an iPad, undercutting privacy settings. In addition, Microsoft engineers report finding that Google could bypass the privacy settings on its Internet Explorer browser. Google denies both accusations.
CISPA Update of the Day: CISPA, the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act that passed the House in April, likely is headed for a Senate vote in early June.
To drum up opposition to the legislation, which would create “a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws,” Fight for the Future, Democrats.com, The Liberty Coalition, and the Entertainment Consumers Association have created a new website called Privacy Is Awesome. The site outlines the top five ways to help defeat CISPA:
- Call your senators and tell them to oppose the Lieberman-Collins bill (CISPA), and ask for a constituent meeting during the Memorial Day recess to help change their mind.
- Email senators offices about CISPA, expressing your opposition.
- Keep calling senators until they plan a constituent meeting.
- Donate to anti-CISPA organizers — the same teams that helped defeat SOPA/PIPA.
- Share your opposition online — Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is spearheading opposition to the legislation, concluding a recent Senate floor speech with:
I believe these bills will encourage the development of a cyber security industry that profits from fear and whose currency is Americans private data. These bills create a Cyber Industrial Complex that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution.
Watch the full video here. It’s terrific.
Hi Tumblr comics fans,
Let’s accomplish some social good today. The organization One Million Moms, who describe themselves as “a network of Christian mothers and grandmothers taking a stand for our children who are exploited by the entertainment industry”, have recently…
