Jason Collins coming out as the first active NBA player is pretty awesome for a lot of reasons.
First, it’s awesome because if you read a lot of comments sections in sports articles (which is an awful idea), you’d know that there is an abundance of homophobia among sports fans. Part of that is many still believe absurdly old and cliche stereotypes about gay men, and having a pretty badass player come out might make a dent, however small, in the giant wall of bigotry that prevents us from progressing to a point where everyone can understand themselves as equals in society.
Second, as it may shock some to learn, there are actually a lot more gay athletes in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL. No one had come out while still active in any of those leagues, and being the first is tough. But now that it’s done the door might be open for many more individuals to come out.
While having many quere players come out would surely be awesome for the GSM community and its allies, it’s important to remember that the awesome thing about someone coming out is that they don’t have to hide a part of their life anymore; the choice to come out is about them and only them, not a community, not the country, not the league, not the team, not their friends, or family (unless they want it to be about any of those things, which is of course their prerogative). When someone comes out the only question should be “does it make them happier?”
Unfortunately, the aforementioned flaws in the response to Collins coming out are some what glaring.
First, there’s the fact that many referred to Collins as the first openly gay athlete, or basketball player. Niether of those things is true. As many have already pointed out, many athletes are already out, some in professional basketball of the WNBA variety (Sheryl Swoopes’ name has been dropped a few times today, for good reason).
Now, the reason that’s particularly frustrating is that some of the language has a “now that a man did it, it really matters” feel to it. Some have even suggested that, because so many assume WNBA players, and other female athletes, to be gay, that somehow takes away from the importance or relevance of their coming out. It doesn’t, and shouldn’t.
Celebrating Collins doesn’t have to inherently diminish those that came out before him, but erasing them by referring to him as the first of anything not directly NBA related (first active NBA player) is erasing the many who already took the ground breaking steps before him.
Second, fuck all the Mark Jackson type non-answers people gave when asked about Collins. Jackson actually said he pray for Collins, which is one of the most fucked up things to say, and should be treated the same as if Jackson were wearing a Westboro Baptist Church t-shirt.
If you don’t support everyone being able to be legally equal, understand themselves as an equal, and live as an equal in society because your god told you not to support it, it’s time to find a new god, or consider what exactly the point of the spiritual aspect of your life is.
Doing it right.
we need more of this in the world
While the effort is there, I feel like this is somewhat flawed. Most of these poster have anonymous girl’s friends saving her from potential rapist. I think it’s a good message that friends should be responsible and such, but isn’t this still kind of victim blamey?
Imagine if the poster was from the girl’s perspective? “He was acting all sweet and offering me a ride but it just didn’t feel right so I got out of the bar.” Wouldn’t that be really bad?
While a good friend should always do their best to help their friends, switching the onus from the girl to her friends is still not placing it on the rapist.
I hope some other people give me their thoughts on this because that’s just how it felt but maybe I’m way off.
Anonymous asked: You think that you can make up your own definitions of racism because the dictionary definition of it was "written by white males"? Can you back that up? Can you find out when the definition was most recently edited and by whom. Definitions are being changed everyday; nowadays women and PoC revise dictionary entries. The most recent definition of racism was probably not "written by white males"
I didn’t “make up” any definition of racism. The “prejudice plus power” meaning has been around for a long time. As for who invented the original definition, Google it, idc. If you’re just asking me to fetch you links I’m not interested; I’ve got Pokemon to catch.
So after playing through Bioshock Infinite, and reading a few responses from people, I feel like there are two main problematic issues (there’s one spoiler below, I tried to disguise it, but if you figure it out it’s kind of a big one):
First, there is no trigger warning for racism. There is some brutal and violent racism in the game and that can be really triggering to some people. The racism isn’t exactly glorified or endorsed (although it’s not as demonized as it probably should be), but it’s still there. It wouldn’t be too hard to make “strong racist themes” a part of the rating system just so people are aware.
Second, what’s probably the bigger issue, the way the Vox Populi are characterized as “just as bad” as the Founders. For those that didn’t play the game, it takes place in Columbia, a city that’s basically a combination of pre-Civil War Virginia, and an 1890s Pennsylvania Coal Mining Town, in that it features extreme and engrained racism, as well as the worst features of unchecked capitalism (indentured servitude to the company store, debtors prison, ect.).
Daisy Fitzroy, an African American woman the main antagonist frames for murder, leads the Vox Populi resistance, who use extreme violence to overthrow the Founders and reclaim Columbia for the working class. Now, whether or not (or when) violence in the face of oppression is acceptable is a pretty complex debate with valid arguments on either side (The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon makes a good case for the use of violence in the face of oppression). But the idea that a society that promotes violent racism is the same as a group who violently seek to overthrow that society is ridiculous.
Violent oppression and violence as a response to oppression are not two equal forms of violence. If you continually punch someone in the face, and they punch you to stop you, that’s not to equal acts of violence.
To put it in real life terms, Malcolm X promoting violent protests to fight against racism is not “just as bad” as the Ku Klux Klan.
If the Little Mermaid was the story of a young prince who desperately wanted adventure in his life, and ran off against his family’s wishes to seek it, no one would call him spoiled or bratty.
If the Little Mermaid was a movie about a young person who’s traditional father was keeping them from being who they were and loving who they wanted, no one would blame the lead character for running away or wanting more out of life.
But the Little Mermaid is about a little mermaid. Either she’s spoiled for not being happy with what she has, or she’s just some poor misguided soul who sacrificed the core pillars of her life for some dude (even if the guy really is just the straw and she clearly states her desires for leaving before she knows he exists).
My point is that while the Little Mermaid does have a lot of problematic issues, so much of the criticism it endures is equally problematic. Similar to Taylor Swift or Lena Dunham’s show Girls, the Little Mermaid is held to a high standard because so many people that will happily and silently take in copious amounts of problematic media suddenly find the courage to speak out against media that features women; in this case, a movie that features a girl that wants more out of life.