fyeahlilbit2point0:

“People of color, women, and gays — who now have greater access to the centers of influence that ever before — are under pressure to be well-behaved when talking about their struggles. There is an expectation that we can talk about sins but no one must be identified as a sinner: newspapers love to describe words or deeds as “racially charged” even in those cases when it would be more honest to say “racist”; we agree that there is rampant misogyny, but misogynists are nowhere to be found; homophobia is a problem but no one is homophobic. One cumulative effect of this policed language is that when someone dares to point out something as obvious as white privilege, it is seen as unduly provocative. Marginalized voices in America have fewer and fewer avenues to speak plainly about what they suffer; the effect of this enforced civility is that those voices are falsified or blocked entirely from the discourse.”

— Teju Cole

(Source: alphahelicalhair, via ebbywaffle)

"

White gay cis men have cultural access to the bodies of black women and black femmes, cultural access that black women and black femmes do not have in relation to white gay cis male bodies. This cultural access allows white gay cis men to caricature black femininities, through mannerisms and voice intonations, as rambunctiously depraved and outlandish. It is a form of ontological mockery that reinforces dehumanizing narratives and racist tropes about black femininities. Perez Hilton, who personifies a homonormative politic, has systematically tapped into the cultural access to which I refer at various points in his career. Indeed, the sassy lexicon he, and so many other upper middle class non-disabled white gay cis men like him, employs rests on the commodification and appropriation of black femme identities. Hilton interjecting himself in a social media dispute between two black women, Azealia Banks and Angel Haze, precipitated the Hilton/Banks altercation, which is emblematic of his (problematic) cultural access.

Because our society subscribes to an insidiously misogynistic sociocultural paradigm, to insult someone, notwithstanding gender, is to invoke the feminine. So what better way for Banks to cut Hilton down to size than to call his masculinity into question? The Banks/Hilton feud had absolutely nothing to do with sexual identity (read: homophobia), but rather, gender power dynamics (read: femmephobia). Azealia calling Perez a “messy faggot” suggests an attempt to assert her status as a no-nonsense, hard ass femcee in a largely masculine of center dominated hip-hop industry. Masculine of center queer men, notwithstanding race, appropriate the word bitch. Very often, they use it pejoratively, and with impunity. They’re seldom called out on the ubiquity of their misguided misogyny. Yet, when it comes to Azealia’s use of the word faggot, she’s quickly characterized as homophobic, reinforcing the dominant narrative that people of color are somehow inherently homophobic, to echo Janet Mock’s recent sentiments. Although Azealia Banks is queer, she is not part of a population that would have this slur used against her. That being said, there are other words that are deeply entrenched manifestations of oppression that go unchecked each and every day. Ironically, many gay men who are up in arms over Azealia’s use of the word faggot are the same men who render femme-identified men invisible and undesirable.

Azealia Banks’ career allegedly hangs in the balance and Perez Hilton’s remains firmly intact. She’s now regarded as the ratchet, violently homophobic black woman. By virtue of his white gay cis male privilege, Hilton did not have to contend with the implications of calling will.i.am a faggot several months ago. This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

" —

—Edward Ndopu, “On Azealia Banks And White Gay Cis Male Privilege,” Crunk Feminist Collective 1/10/13 (via racialicious) (via endracismandhomophobia)

“

This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

”

“

This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

”

“

This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

”

AND THAT, CHILDREN, IS THE ENTIRE POINT. 

• Homophobia, or rather Heterosexism, is NOT a problem of JUST black people. That’s a fucking social problem that, quite honestly, is more the fault of cis straight white supremacy than anything else. LBR.
• Azealia was dead fucking wrong for what she did, but she was spot on about calling out the pick-and-choose indignation of certain sects of the so-called socially aware. Of course, as this quote itself points out, she used a word that isn’t used against her as a pejorative which, no matter how you slice it, is wrong.
• As a femme mostly male identifying person, can I just shout Hallelujah for someone finally saying this in a way that captures the things I want to intimate? ESPECIALLY the way femme people who don’t identify as women are treated within their own ‘communities’. That shit is TIRED. I’m tired of people thinking because I’m feminine, I’m weak, unattractive, and unworthy of respect. Fuck you.

(via renamok)

(via renamok)

(via crystalzelda)

(Source: dekomoron-archive, via crystalzelda)

"

The federal government said in March that it is working to curb the “problem” of homosexuality, especially among Muslims who make up over 60% of Malaysia’s population of 29 million people.

According to a handout issued at a recent seminar, signs of homosexuality in boys may include preferences for tight, light-coloured clothes and large handbags, local media reported.

For girls, the details were less clear. Girls with lesbian tendencies have no affection for men and like to hang out and sleep in the company of women, the reports said.

" — Malaysia holds seminars to help teachers spot ‘gay children’ 

fuckyeahsodomites:

Gay rights activists pie Christian leader and notorious homophobe Anita Bryant in the face, 1977.

This is fucking awesome.

A+ Response

(Source: lalondes, via renamok)

mamamantis:

raging-liberal-hard-on:

invisiblelad:

reclusivefemale:

meowchelle:

kittaaaycat:

reginlad:

roooster:

seoulsister:

This is NOT okay at all. 

This is so fucked up.

Seriously?? Seriously. A HOSPITAL?! I can’t.

What the hell… WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE THIS STILL EXIST. Come on. Grow up and accept everyone dammit.

What the actual fuck. I am so disappointed in human beings. 

This is so sad :( Humanity may think it’s moving in the right direction, but for the most part, it still sucks. If a HOSPITALis acting like this, humanity’s got a long way to go.

But its “just a difference of opinion”, right? A difference of opinion that can legitimately empower those in positions of power to justify barring people from seeing their significant others during important moments in their lives without legal recourse in some situations. Being “just a boyfriend”…or “partner in crime” means you can be invalidated as such when it matters. 

And the sad thing is, if these two people were heterosexual, there would be absolutely no problem. The nurses may have even thought their affectionate exchanges were “cute” or “romantic.” They would have encouraged Paul to come back, that his presence would have a good effect on his partner’s recovery, etc. 

I’m not entirely sure what the logic is behind treating people like this simply for sexual orientation, other than there is no logic. It’s all hate. And like stated above, these kinds of things hardly ever boil down to “difference of opinion.” It would have been a difference of opinion had the nurses been disapproving of what was happening, but left the couple alone. It ceases to become a difference of opinion when people like these hospital employees openly and viciously discriminate against same sex couples for no other reason other than they are same sex. 

It’s disgusting. Really, truly disgusting, and I hope that some action is taken to reprimand the parties involved and ensure that incidences like this DON’T happen again. 

ugh FUCK excuse me while i go kick some shit

(via jamilalikemanila)

(Source: renamok)

renamok:

mattyaye:

I hope this gets a lot of notes.

Edit - This screenshot is real and is from his official Myspace page, sorry it’s true.

Wow, he really hates gay folks and reproductive rights, huh?

Well, that’s good to know. From what little I know of his work, he’s not my cuppa anyway but if he were this would be the end of my interest. I can continue ignoring his existence, I guess.

I’m not quite surprised they don’t seem to be up with the times if they’re still using a Myspace page.

medeaismyfavourite:

joemccarthyblues:

Remember where we are people! Among middle class white liberals, it is more of a sin to be black than it is to be gay. That’s liberal social order John Kerry style tolerance right there

Yeah, I remember seeing this a while back. It really bugged me.

The correct response to a black homophobe is not and never will be “HEY REMEMBER WHEN YOUR PEOPLE WERE MY SLAVES AND I COULD SELL/KILL/RAPE THEM AT WILL?! LOLOLOLOL WASN’T THAT AWESOME?!”

Everyone was wrong here - the black guy, the gay guy, everyone.

deadlyalmonds:

mortalcassie:

shortformblog:

• $1.5 million in funding to prevent gays from marrying source

» Don’t forget, this is taxpayer money, allocated by House Republicans to their legal counsel to defend DOMA in court. It was originally capped at $500,000, but that limit has since been…

That’s freaking insane! one and a half million dollars to prevent people from getting married?! I’m POSITIVE that there are hundreds of more productive things to do with 1.5 million dollars than interfering with people’s lives who have nothing to do with theirs.

Rebloging for that paragraph while I print out sources for my death penalty paper.

(Source: shortformblog, via g0g0at)

House GOP triples budget to fight same-sex marriage 

mortalcassie:

shortformblog:

• $1.5 million in funding to prevent gays from marrying source

» Don’t forget, this is taxpayer money, allocated by House Republicans to their legal counsel to defend DOMA in court. It was originally capped at $500,000, but that limit has since been tripled.

Tax payer money will not go to abortions… but it is allowed to go towards keeping people from marrying? This is BS!

Does anyone know a place where I can send a quick email to all house members at once?  I very much want to complain about this.

(Source: shortformblog)