#reading this article was super interesting!

[awfullyqueerwriter]

this is actually a super interesting article though, you should totally read it

Way, way too real (source)

[lostmoonofjupiter]

By staining genetic material with fluorescent labels, researchers can examine how key genes behave across the sea star body. Credit: Laurent Formery

[museenkuss]

Dance performance and delicately constructed skirts, flowing lines and ballet slippers for Chika Kisada a/w 2023. Runway photos by Chika Kisada via vogue.com

Ever since founding her label in 2014, Japanese designer Chika Kisada has drawn on her background as a dancer to combine ballet esprit with punk spirit. This season, after working closely with the ballet dancer Haruo Niyama has inspired her view on gender, the models floating down the runway transcend the ideas of masculine and feminine, wearing suit jackets draped over delicately constructed bustiers, glittering shirts and flowing trousers, rustling heaps of skirts, jeans and stockings, and the omnipresent ballet slippers. And all the while, Niyama dances behind a translucent curtain, a Kisada-clad shadow. Watch the show.

[cecoeur]

🤷🏻‍♀️

[sickfreaksirkay]

yeah <3 (from Between Knights: Triangular Desire and Sir Palomides in Sir Thomas Malory's "The Book of Sir Tristram de Lyones")

[woahpip]

saltburn isn't a movie about class really? i mean we find out oliver has been lying-- he's firmly upper middle class. poor compared to felix's family, yeah, but he's not wanting for anything. and yet he DOES want, obsessively so. that says more about the rich yearning for more riches than it does about poor vs rich. the movie explores entitlement and obsession and consent/lack of consent more than it does class!

[madegeeky]

Epic Free Game (til 26 Dec 2023, 10am ct)

Lost in transit while on a colonist ship bound for the edge of the galaxy, you awake decades later only to find yourself in the midst of a deep conspiracy threatening to destroy the colony. Explore the various planets and locations of Halcyon, including the mysterious Gorgon Asteroid and delightful distilleries of Eridanos. As you encounter various factions, all vying for power, the character you decide to become will determine how this player-driven story unfolds. (Includes all dlc.)

(Geeky note: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. This game isn't for everyone but considering that this is free, you should definitely grab it if you're interested. It's made by the people who did Fallout New Vegas (which was not Bethesda) and it's got a quirky sense of humor. While overall I think it's a great game, I think it's real strength is in the character-work for the npcs.)

[dreadfutures]

oh there are lab grown pearls but i thought it meant the pearls are grown without a mollusk :^(

There are pearls you can get without an animal involved, fortunately! And some are still good quality! But they're still not lab grown, and I'm being pedantic because the reason we can't make fully synthetic pearls is pretty cool actually!

Fake pearls are not *grown* at all, and not made in labs the way some gemstones are. As a shorthand, some companies call them lab grown, but they are always "manufactured pearls" or "imitation pearls." They're mass produced in factories out of other materials.

Lab grown gemstones are really really cool, but this isn't that process, and no lab is involved. In theory, you could take the materials a pearl is made out of and coax it into growing...something. But that mineral would end up being crystalline (trying to grow it slowly into its natural form) or flat (trying to grow it in deposited layers).

The cool thing about pearls is that they get their shape, lustre, and physical properties from the way the calcium carbonate is layered up in a sphere from around the initial nucleation site! Even their unique colors have to do with the microstructures and what's incorporated into the material as it grows. It's so far completely impossible to make them synthetically. You *have* to use a natural material (mollusk shell) or fake it (glass, plastic).

SEM images at different angles of observation on a cultured pearl curved surface region showing aragonite mesolayers and polygonal tile edges. Magnification markers are 4 and 2 microns, respectively. Murr, L.E., Ramirez, D.A. The Microstructure of the Cultured Freshwater Pearl. JOM 64, 469–474 (2012).

We haven't spent as much time trying to come up with a way to lab-grow (genuinely grow) pearls. They don't have as many uses as, say, sapphire (which we lab grow a lot, perfectly!). BUT.

A LOT of research has been done on another cool thing about bivalves...

Muscle foot glue! There are a ton of applications and inspiration we can use muscle foot protein for, like using this glue instead of stitches or rods for shoulder surgeries, or for underwater adhesive applications for structures, boats, pipes, etc.

Bivalves have a lot of their coastal territories in danger because of climate change and development. They clean water and actively sequester carbon and they're super super high in protein so they are all around super cool creatures that don't get enough love!

[agnesandhilda]

when I used to do arnis (filipino stick fighting/martial arts, which has a handful of different names, but that’s what the group I practiced with called it) we practiced chokeholds and I, understandably, was kind of freaked out about the idea of being choked even though I understood it wasn’t real.

we were doing triangle chokes. to clarify how that works, you’d be facing someone (we’d usually run through some brief drill before this to simulate a “fight” that someone would “lose” and end up positioned for the chokehold) with their throat pressed to your bicep and your stick against the left side of their neck, resting against your own shoulder, to keep them in place. your stick and arm together would make a triangle shape with someone’s head in the center---that’s where the name comes from---and you’d press in against the side of their neck, not directly on the front of the throat but to one of the soft, fleshy sides on either side of the neck to restrict blood flow. (and, fun fact, not all chokeholds work by targeting the airway! some, like triangle chokes, affect circulation)

so we pair off to practice and I’m with this dude I’ll call andrew, a mild-mannered older man, and he walks me through it. I tell him I’m nervous, and he explains that I can tap out, (which is common practice for martial arts, and means exactly what it sounds like--you tap your partner to signal that they stop. I had done this before for exercises related to joint locks and takedowns, so I was already familiar with the concept, though I was never nervous for those) whenever I feel like.

anyway, I’m still skittish, but I’ve known andrew for like a year at this point and know he’s a responsible guy to partner with for drills, so whatever. we’re doing this. we get into position. he’s got me in the crook of his arm, and he starts to press down very, very slowly. now, if you’ve never been put in a triangle choke, I’ll tell you that it feels like there’s pressure building up in your face, inside your head---or at least that’s how I remember it feeling now, years after last doing it, so take that with a grain of salt if you want. anyway, I let that feeling of pressure build a little, and then tap his arm twice, solidly. and he lets me go on the spot. 

we do that a few more times. he catches me, gradually increases the pressure on my neck, and whenever I feel like I’ve hit this natural threshold of discomfort I tap out and he releases me instantly. at some point, I think, oh, he’ll stop whenever I tell him to, and it was oddly empowering.

like, I know it sounds weird to say, but I was what, sixteen at the time? and like most kids I had never gotten much of a say in what happened to me or my body---you can’t dress too boyish, it’s rude and improper, (even if I just wanted to wear what cis boys would in that same situation), you can’t refuse physical affection in polite company, even if it’s from people you despise---it was novel to me to be able to give my no and have it respected instantly and without question.

andrew’s turn to practice ends, and mine starts. I put him in the chokehold and he corrects my stance so I do it properly, and I start to actually choke the guy. now, if letting someone practice their chokehold on you is nerve-wracking so is being the one to do the choke, in an equal and opposite way---I did martial arts for years, and I never got entirely comfortable with hitting another person with force, even though they always consented to it! fuck, I do taekwondo now (sort of, I’m bad about actually showing up), and I’m still hesitant to strike up until my partner pretty much up and tells me to go for it already. 

anyway, I’m a bit shy about this whole choking business, so I go in slow as a snail (to be fair, you’re always supposed to go slow for safety reasons during any chokeholds or joint locks or takedowns, but I’m going extra slow), pressing into the side of andrew’s throat with my stick, and after several moments he taps my shoulder once, firmly, and I break the triangle to let him out. 

we do this until my turn to practice the chokehold is over, and then the guy who runs the class stops everybody to tell us to break up and find new partners to practice with, and I make a beeline for one of my favorite partners, one of the few other women in the class, and one of only two female black belts, which left her as one of my only options for a role model. I’ll call her edith! edith was blunt, funny, a no-nonsense teacher, and I thought she was the coolest. 

edith had been practicing there for fifteen years and, unlike andrew, who was a straightforward, no-surprises kind of guy, would mess with you. she’d sometimes break out of the routine of the drill we were supposed to be doing to try something else she knew---because she’d been practicing arnis for about as long as I’d been alive at the time, and blindside me. I remember once we were doing this drill, a fast-paced one, swaying around the room, our sticks clashing loudly, and she snaked her stick around my arm to catch my elbow and pull me in, twist my arm behind my back, and tease me. she said I was stiff and predictable, which was embarrassing advice to get, but also hard to be upset about when the whole situation was fun for me. 

anyway. I went over to her immediately so she could choke me next

[hellaephemeral]

i have finished another classic and as i know you all nEED my reviews because i am so smart and literate and eloquent frfr here is my review of the picture of dorian gray:

faust fanfiction. a good one, one of those that is better than the original for sure but while reading i was so heavily reminded of faust!! the characters?? the topic of youth? and pleasure? and morality? and corruption? i see you mr oscar wilde, a homosexual 🫡. dorian gray is the OG material gwurl and the most dramatic bitch i’ve ever read a 200 page book about. also?? him kissing his own portrait before smooching lord henry? just proves that homophobia is real and internalised homophobia was the rEAL REASON dorian turned so evil and rotten </3 and i will dIE on that hill. he could have just fucked henry and gotten it over with but nooo he had to spend every other night with him going to dinner…or the opera, just yearning pitifully after him and unable to let him go. truly heartbreaking. </3 internalised homophobia is the rEAL villain of this story.

[noxtivagus]

i get distracted so easily but i promise i'll get more done ! eventually aaaa 🫶🏼

[sunnybluebunny]

Throughout history, human beings have sought control through arbitrary rules when dealing with a tumultuous and an uncontrollable world.

It’s why most religions are created.

weird anti ideology finally leaking out into the mainstream

[thetangibleghost]

I gotta confess it is so much more fun talking to Sal as if he is a separate person like he wants and not a member of the system. He's super creative like. Its just fun.

[burtlancster]

Outside Washington, D.C., studio, before Youth Wants to Know got underway, a few students cornered Burt to ask, "Do you think certain of our movies encourage juvenile delinquency?" Burt paused, thoughtfully lit a cigarette, and said, "I'd like a moment to think about that."

Please Tell Us, Mr. Burt Lancaster. . . — PHOTOPLAY MAGAZINE DECEMBER, 1957

Twenty high school students were lucky enough, recently, to interview Burt Lancaster, who is currently breaking box office records as the star of his own film, Sweet Smell of Success. And the teens broke a record of their own. "It was one of the toughest interviews I've been put through," Burt admitted at the end. The questions ran through everything from sex and censorship to the high price of the neighborhood movie and Marilyn Monroe. There wasn't a dull moment.

STUDENT: Sir, does the average American moviegoer's preference for films dealing with crimes, sex and violence indicate that he cannot appreciate more refined acting and drama? I've wondered about this.

MR. LANCASTER: No, I don't think that is necessarily true. I think you will find most people go to movies for purposes of relaxation, and they like to see things on the screen that cause visual excitement but that don't particularly disturb or distress them too much or make them think too hard.

STUDENT: In other words, intellectual movies would not appeal to the average American moviegoer?

MR. LANCASTER: To the average American moviegoer, no, I would say.

STUDENT: In this light, do you feel that you are debasing yourself when you are acting, just to satisfy American moviegoers' cravings and likes?

MR. LANCASTER: No, I think you have responsibilities to the likes and dislikes of people. What we as a group have to try to do in the making of movies is to make those that will appeal to a large, mass audience. We must also try to make movies that will appeal to, shall we say, a smaller and minority group. And as long as we maintain our own standards of what we like, we will find we can make pictures that can appeal to all peoples. Not all the time, though.

STUDENT: Mr. Lancaster, as a producer, would you tell me this: When you choose a picture, do you choose one that is popular with the American public even though you personally feel that story is not too good?

MR. LANCASTER: Not always. Well, no, we would never choose a picture if we felt the story is not too good; that is, if it doesn't have the basic ingredients of what would represent drama and entertainment to people.

STUDENT: Mr. Lancaster, do you feel that movies such as "The Man with the Golden Arm" gives Europeans the wrong impression of America?

MR. LANCASTER: I don't think any picture gives European people a wrong impression of America if it is well made and made with honesty and integrity as to the subject matter.

STUDENT: Well, do you think such movies encourage juvenile delinquency here in the United States?

MR. LANCASTER: I think juvenile delinquency is not encouraged by movies, specifically. I think juvenile delinquency is encouraged by unfortunate economic conditions and conditions in homes where children don't have a proper upbringing because, very often, of those conditions.

STUDENT: Sir, we know now there are a lot of foreign actors and actresses over the United States. Do you think the American public seems to like these people much better than their own people, those they see all the time?

MR. LANCASTER: No. This brings up the question of what makes really a star performer. American people and, of course, European people and people all over the world, for that matter, like the performer who has that unique personality and quality which appeals to them personally. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are, shall we say, of foreign extraction, I don't think.

STUDENT: Do you feel foreign films are going to make any great inroads into the habits of the American movie-going public?

MR. LANCASTER: I think time has proven at least that foreign films as such do appeal only to a limited group of Americans. Again, it goes back to the original question that was asked earlier. One of the reasons is that American people as such are more comfortable with a subject matter that pertains to things that they particularly understand. Foreign people talk with accents that are very hard to understand. Very often, they have a very grim and brutal kind of realism which a great many American people do not like to see, since they do not have any identification with the problems. These are some of the reasons foreign films are not especially successful in a broad sense in the American cinematic world.

Moderator Steve McCormick nodded to a boy in the front row, who demanded, Mr. Lancaster, how do actors and producers react to censorship groups?" The girl next to him wanted to know, "Do Americans like foreign films and stars more than our own?"

STUDENT: I am interested in knowing why you think western films should be done necessarily with fun and action.

MR. LANCASTER: It isn't that they necessarily should; and a peculiar thing happens in movies. You see, there have been pictures like "High Noon," for instance, which have been highly successful. On the other hand, there have been pictures like the one I made with Gary Cooper called "Veracruz," which by critical standards does not measure up to a "High Noon," but which is a much more satisfying picture from the point of view of entertainment. There is also another problem: When you make a film of a special nature that will appeal to limited groups of people, you have to face the fact that these films are not in the broad sense of the word, popular. Therefore, when you do them, you must be careful that you do them for a certain price, because you have a limited income on such films, and the first cardinal rule of making pictures or writing a play or any form of entertainment is to make something that is financially successful. If they are not successful, you don't continue in business, and you have no opportunity to present the ideas that you think are unique or even artistic.

STUDENT: How does Hollywood face competition between TV and movies?

MR. LANCASTER: What Hollywood has attempted to do about it is this: Actually, it is my personal opinion that the advent of TV, as far as Hollywood is concerned, has been a very, very healthy thing. There was a time, about ten short years ago, when almost anything that came out of Hollywood could be assured of reasonable financial success. Naturally, this sort of lulled people into a sense of false security, and there was not a great deal of attempt on the part of the studios to try to do anything worthwhile and different and challenging. Now that great inroads have been made in the whole financial structure of Hollywood, they have realized they have to do better things, things that are more exciting, more challenging so that people will leave their television receivers and come out to look at them.

STUDENT: Sir, I have read you do not attend many Hollywood social functions. Don't you like the type of people at these functions?

MR. LANCASTER: Oh, yes. It has nothing to do with the functions. It is just that I have a group of friends that I would prefer to be with. For example, my wife and I like to play bridge. I have never been particularly comfortable or at ease in large social functions, cocktail parties, and so forth.

STUDENT: Would you ever encourage your own children to go into acting if they wanted to?

MR. LANCASTER: I would certainly do it. I feel a child should have an opportunity to do anything he has an inclination toward.

STUDENT: Do yours watch you when you are performing in movies?

MR. LANCASTER: Yes, and they're among my toughest critics. They have traveled with me all over the world while I was making movies. They have lived in the Fiji Islands for four months and attended school there, they attended school in Mexico City, they have lived in France for the summer and they have lived in Italy for six months when I was there making a picture. But now they have reached the age where it is very difficult for them to go with me because they go to school. They have certain ties there, so I try to arrange my program so if I am shooting on location, it occurs in the summertime so I can take them with me.

STUDENT: Mr. Lancaster, you mentioned a few minutes ago about the entertainment of movies, and that is why people go to movies, to be entertained. But it seems to me a juvenile delinquency film or a film on corruption in life, the baseness in life, would be rather not too entertaining.

MR. LANCASTER: Let me make clear what I mean by entertaining. Every movie that is made has a point of view, whether it is a good one, a bad one, a useful one or what. By entertainment, I mean that regardless of what the subject matter may be, it should have an entertainment quality to it. That does not mean that the subject should not be treated with great seriousness, and great depth and great definition.

STUDENT: I was wondering if the type of film such as "On the Waterfront," where you can come out fighting mad and want to clean up the waterfront, has the purpose of reforming. Or "Baby Doll."

MR. LANCASTER: Well, about "Baby Doll," I would quarrel with you. But certainly on "On the Waterfront" I agree with you.

STUDENT: Most of your films are hard-bitten, often violent, dramas. Do you object to your children seeing them?

MR. LANCASTER: Here is what I try to do. I let my children see the films that I am in. Some of them—for instance, "Come Back Little Sheba," which I think is a worthwhile picture in addition to being an entertaining one are difficult for their immature minds to understand completely. But rather than have them not see it, if they ask to see it, I let them, but I make sure to see it with them so I can try to answer all the questions they might raise. Therefore, I hope I can give them some sense of security about it, even those matters they might not particularly understand.

I would like to cite an example of just that. My little boy asked yesterday to see "Sweet Smell of Success," which is also a very hard-bitten picture and not what you would normally call children's fare. I said, "Well, Jimmie, that is fine; you can see the picture. But I don't think you will like it. Why do you want to see it?"

"Well," he said, "I'd like to see it, Daddy, because you're in it."

"That is fair enough," I said, "but I don't think you will understand it." And he answered, "I may not understand it, but that doesn't mean I won't like it."

STUDENT: Mr. Lancaster, what is the reaction of producers to censorship groups?

MR. LANCASTER: As you probably know, there is no official censorship problem in the movies in the United States or any official censorship at all. This is not so in England, where they do have an official government censorship, and can refuse you a license to show a picture. In short, they have a police force that can stop you from showing the picture. There is the Johnson office which has its headquarters here in Washington, and is a self-imposed censorship by the industry.

It is known as the MPPA—Motion Picture Producers Association. Their attitude is this: They say to the producers, "In order to protect the morality of the nation as it might be affected by motion pictures, if you will let us see the scripts you are going to make, we will attempt, not to censor, mind you, what you are trying to say, but attempt to guide you in matters of how to handle these problems as best you can."

Now, of course, it always comes to the question of who are the people who are going to decide this, how knowledgeable are they, do they know better than the actual creators of the motion picture?

What has happened is that in recent years (and I think this a very healthy thing) the MPPA has been forced to recognize—perhaps not forced but has willingly recognized—the fact that enormous advances have been made in the general education of the American public and, therefore, the subjects which were considered taboo before are now permitted.

So what has happened is this: The old code has been enormously changed. The whole attitude of the so-called censor board has improved a great deal. We do now show pictures in which words like "abortion" and "prostitution" are mentioned, and in which we discuss divorce problems, and then, of course, there is the matter of narcotics, which was recently brought up in several pictures. The picture "Hatful of Rain" now has been approved by the board, where before the "Man with the Golden Arm" was not approved. It looks like things are looking up in the censorship problem.

STUDENT: I would like to know, would you agree with some critics who say that Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe have acting talents equal to their more obvious appeals?

MR. LANCASTER: Well, I don't know what the critics feel about it. That is their opinion. One of the things I would like to be made clear about movies again it goes back to the business of being a star: The most unique thing a motion picture actor or actress can have is an outstanding or peculiar personality of some kind. And these girls certainly have some outstanding qualities that appeal to people visually, at least. Those are the elements most important in the making of a motion picture star. Not necessarily the acting ability as such. On the other hand, to be a good actor, to be an exciting personality on the screen, of course, is that much better.

STUDENT: Who is the most beautiful woman you have ever acted with?

MR. LANCASTER: They were all beautiful. I am just quoting my lines from "The Rainmaker." "They are all beautiful in a different way."

STUDENT: I want to know what your wife thinks about your performing in movies and having these torrid love scenes with Hollywood leading ladies.

MR. LANCASTER: The torrid love scene you have with a Hollywood leading lady is, from our point of view while we are in the process of making it, "work." You have a job. You are creating an illusion for an audience to see, and the only assurance I think that my wife has is that she knows I love her, and that is about all I can say on that subject.

STUDENT: I am interested in knowing why you didn't change your name when you started acting. Most actors and actresses do.

MR. LANCASTER: As a matter of fact, I did want to change my name. They were going to give me the name of an economist, Stuart Chase. They decided this by numerology. Then a gentleman by the name of Mark Hellinger, who is now dead, and who produced the first picture I was in, "The Killers," said to me, "Is Burt Lancaster your real name?"

I said, "Yes."

He said, "What's wrong with that?" I said, "Nothing." He said, "Let's use it." I said, "O.K."

STUDENT: Sir, because of television, do you think that the pictures now coming out might break down some of the prices that these theatres have? In other words, producing prices and everything?

MR. LANCASTER: You think the prices are too high?

STUDENT: Well, yes.

MR. LANCASTER: I know this has been a subject of great discussion among distributors, because I have also been in that end of the business since my pictures are distributed and exhibited. The feeling is they try to keep the economic level of prices and pictures as low as possible since it is, first of all, a traditional thing and the people who generally support the pictures are not those who have a great deal of money, normally speaking.

I will gladly say this: The distribution groups would gladly put a picture up for a nickel tomorrow if the cost of production would permit them.

There is no desire on their part to try to cheat the public. Sometimes pictures are so expensive they have to charge certain prices in order to get any kind of income from them.

"This has been one of the most provocative questioning sessions I've ever gone through. Our young people are really serious about motion pictures," said Burt as time ran out and the interview came to a close. "Anyone who says American teenagers are delinquents is all wet. I am grateful to the National Broadcasting Company's 'Youth Wants to Know,' and the National Education Association for bringing us together today."

THE END

[m-12-7-jo]

White Supremacy in Heels

by Dreama G. Moon and Michelle A Holling, in Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies.

"[...] we fear that (white) feminism as currently constituted is not a libera-tory politic. As a progressive intervention into patriarchy, feminism has traditionally cen-tered (white) women’s experience, yet when sex and gender are combined with race, feminism tends to lose its progressive edge. In this way, the centering of women’s experi-ence becomes a double-edged sword; that is, endeavoring to advocate for all women yet, operating from a singular identity or positionality that consequently jeopardizes the fem-inist project.

In its current manifestation, we argue that, in the interest of improving white women’s positionality within a white power structure, (white) feminism ideologically grounds itself in a gendered victimology that masks its participation and functionality in white supre-macy. By erasing women of color, positioning women as victims of white male hegemony, and failing to hold white women accountable for the production and reproduction of white supremacy, (white) feminism manifests its allegiance to whiteness and in doing so commits “discursive violence” [...].

By “seeing race” in (white) feminism, we do not mean countercolorblindness, but rather a profound critical grasp of the centrality of race and its transformative intersections with other identities in political and social life. In this sense, we envision a particular kind of racial analytic that functions epistemologically to challenge power inequities. “Seeing race” as a liberatory racial politic is vital.

[...] Indeed, a central problematic within (white) feminism is its reliance on and grounding in a white epistemology, what Feagin refers to as a “white racial frame." White epistemology is grounded in a way of knowing and understanding the world that col-ludes with and/or rationalizes systemic processes that uphold and reproduce racial inequal-ity and white supremacy.

Given that “woman” has historically been read as “white” in the U. S. context, (white) feminists must work deliberately, purposefully, and consistently to explode (white) patri-archal influences in their theory and praxis. [...] Moreover, if much of (white) feminism contemporarily, but perhaps even historically, is informed by a white epistemology, then its ability to challenge white supremacy is significantly curtailed. As long as (white) feminism continues to miss the mark in this regard, we cannot understand it as a politics of liberation of the people (i.e., those who seek racial and related social justices), but instead lament its failure to continually disrupt and upend white supremacy.

“As white women ignore their built-in privilege of whiteness and define woman [sic] in terms of their own experience alone, then women of Color [sic] become ‘other,’ the outsider whose experience and tradition is too ‘alien’ to comprehend.”

[...] when women of color are erased in (white) feminism, the racism inherent in (white) feminism is also conveniently made invisible.

This is a historical rather than simply present-day practice. [...]

While both white women and women of color fought for women’s suffrage, their desires for the vote were based in very different realities. Whereas class-privileged white women sought parity with their white male counterparts, women of color saw the vote as a tool to combat racial terrorism.

These different motivations and goals are often at root of the lingering chasm between white feminists and feminists of color today. Rather than deal with these problematic racial politics, white feminists seem to find ignoring those politics more palatable, which means that they must also minimize and/or ignore the reali-ties of women of color.

[...] Though (white) feminism erases and marginalizes women of color, (white) feminists are quick to trot out tropes referencing folks of color when to their benefit.

[...] Rather than attempt to deepen the politics of (white) feminism by coming to understand how (white) nonparticipation in black liberation removes the option to benefit from those politics, (white) feminism gas-lights critics as a white strategy of deflection.

Part of the ideological helpmate of (white) feminism in the erasure of women of color is the individualism inherent in whiteness (i.e., “whites are individuals, folks of color are col- lectives”) that in turn infuses (white) feminism. Although (white) feminism treats “women” as a collective when rhetorically beneficial, (white) feminism fails to acknowl-edge –consistently and in any detail– how the “structural intersectionality” of race and gender position women of color historically as sexual victims of white men as well as men of color.

Kolber clarifies, “the white victimhood narrative is a tool that distracts from the reality of race relations in the US, whereby white US Americans either claim they are racially margina-lized, or that they are ‘attacked’ for being the beneficiaries of inequitable race relations.”

[...] unsurprisingly this narrative has found a home in (white) feminism wherein (white) women are portrayed as victims of (white) patriarchy. In this narrative, white men are constructed as solely responsible for both racism and sexism which ignores white women’s allegiance to them.

Cargle documents extensively “toxic white feminist” microaggressions often observed in settings where the intersection of race and gender ground conversations and include “tone policing” (wanting women of color to stop being aggressive or angry), “spiritual bypassing” (demanding peace from communities in peril), a “white savior complex” (focusing only on what one has done for people of color in the past), and “centering” (focusing on their own emotions and sen-sitivities). To this list, we add “white woman tears”; it shifts focus from people of color to white women in need of care. These discursive strategies epitomize “white victimhood,” an instantiation of a white epistemology, consequently recentering whiteness.

[faytelumos]

Here are some articles that talk more about it.

every once in a while i learn some wild new piece of information that explains years of behavior and reminds me that i will never truly understand everything about my ridiculous adhd brain