balls.

518 notes

Umr bhar Ghalib yehi bhool karta raha
Dhool chehre par thi aur aaina saaf karta raha

Chhod de ab use wafa ki ummeed Ghalib
Jo rula sakta hai who bhula bhi sakta hai

-Ghalib 

Translation:

Through life, I kept making this mistake again and again. The dust was on my face, and I kept wiping the mirror.

Let go the idea of expecting loyalty, Ghalib. One who can make you cry, can also forget you easily.

(via ismiamora)

(Source: stupidityinmoderation, via ismiamora)

129 notes

I want to suggest to you that a commitment to sexual equality with males, that is, to uniform character as of motion or surface, is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered. I want to ask you to make a different commitment—a commitment to the abolition of poverty, rape, and murder; that is, a commitment to ending the system of oppression called patriarchy; to ending the male sexual model itself. The real core of the feminist vision, its revolutionary kernel if you will, has to do with the abolition of all sex roles—that is, an absolute transformation of human sexuality and the institutions derived from it. In this work, no part of the male
sexual model can possibly apply. Equality within the framework
of the male sexual model, however that model is reformed
or modified, can only perpetuate the model itself and
the injustice and bondage which are its intrinsic consequences.

Our Blood, Andrea Dworkin. 

(via staininyourbrain)

(Source: bitalbot, via bocks)

Filed under yes

343 notes

Activists/Actvism:

namumkin:

There are quiet a few problems I have with how people define activism. Whether it’s the usual liberal feel-good activism, or the so called “radical” groups who rely on different tactics in order to enact their activism (for example, hiding behind academic jargon, using overly colorful language that the people who are being ‘saved’ often don’t understand). Here are some of my main problems with activism/activists:

  1. The feel-good activism: This type of arm-chair activism relies on the happiness of the activist. This activist can support capitalism/uphold companies who exploit their workers as long as they promise a band-aid solution (e.g. TOMS “One for One” initiative which promises that “when you buy a pair of TOMS Shoes, you’re also helping improve the health, education and well-being of a child." and the "One Day Without Shoes" movement for name a few). This activism, the corporations-for-the-people relies on band-aid "solutions" without challenging the structural (imperial) hierarchies this activism functions under. Moreover, the activist here engages in action such as choosing not to wear shoes for a day to show their sympathy, understanding nothing but how cheap and easy their feel-good-activism is.
  2. Western Individualism and the notion of ‘empowerment’: This type of activist uses the idea of activism to push for personal empowerment and enrichment of character rather than challenging structural imbalances of power. Although individual empowerment can be political, when activism turns into, again, a feel-good gathering event they become problematic. As Lierra Keith said “activism has turned into one big group therapy session. It doesn’t matter what we accomplish—what matters is how we feel about it. The goal of the action isn’t to change the material balance of power, it’s to feel “empowered”… This rerouting of the goal from political change to inner change is the reaction of both a spoiled, self-absorbed people, and the utterly desperate, desperate to do something, anything.
  3. Power relationship between activists and those who are being represented: Often activism relies on the power imbalance between activists/the represented people — there needs to be voiceless victims for overzealous activist to engage with them and their identities. These activists are anyone from those who keep the power intact via academic jargon to the structurally-privileged who use their privileged status to ‘help’ people, however,there is a need for the people these activists represent to exist in confusion/gray area. Rather than eradicating it, this type of activism relies on various imbalances of power.
  4. Activist-as-Identity: This activist treats activism as an identity — one is an “activist” and not “engaging in activism”. This type of activism relies on identity politics, on who can/is and who isn’t/cannot be an “Activist” rather than engaging in practice of it. Activism becomes a mere identity rather than a set of praxis (the process through which various theories/ideas are practiced). This activism often relies on all other types of activism mentioned above: the feel-good activism, the personal empowerment, and the use of power over others. Moreover, this type of activism “excludes those who do not speak the language of elites and thus reinforces social relations of domination. Educated elites typically claim that only they are qualified to produce theory and believe that only they can interpret not only their own but everyone else’s experiences. Moreover, educated elites often use this belief to uphold their own privilege.

Just as Edward Said wrote in Culture and Imperialism "theory is taught so as to make the student believe that he or she can become a Marxist, a feminist, an Afrocentrist, or a deconstructionist with about the same effort and commitment required in choosing items from a menu.” Activism is made into a menu in which people can choose day-long/feel-good actions to undergo. The identity as an “activist” requires no commitment, attention, or real change — being an activist becomes a mere activity.

(via pontiacbandit)

618 notes

maarnayeri:

I’ve seen more hollow think pieces about what Gal Gadot means to representation in a “feminist” lens with this role of Wonder Woman than anti colonial feminist critiques and commentary of Israeli apparatus and Palestinian women under IDF surveillance (precisely the work the likes of Gal Gadot pride themselves upon).

Mainstream feminism is a morally bankrupt institution. Nothing more than an agent and normalizer of neoliberal violence.

(via oyuvou)