I think we need to stop calling most “TERFs” TERFs not because it’s like an epic dunk to call them FARTs or whatever but because the vast majority of “feminist” transphobes now don’t even pretend to be radical feminists they’re literally just extremely bourgeoisie liberal feminists who are rabidly transphobic in addition to (usually) being really racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Like I highly doubt J.K. Rowling even knows who Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon are she’s just a rich bourgeoisie white woman who hates trans people under the guise of “feminist” language. She’s not even a TERF she’s just a TELF.
23 notes · View notes
According to the Polity IV method, the United States during the time of slavery scored 9 out of 10 on the democracy scale. During the era of Jim Crow, when most blacks and women of all races couldn’t vote, it scored a perfect 10 out of 10—or “full democracy.”
The metric makes many equally dubious assertions. Today’s Israel—which occupies the lands of 4.5 million Palestinians, who cannot vote in Israeli elections, do not have freedom of movement and are restricted in dozens of ways—receives a score of “full democracy,” or 10 out of 10. Since the nation of Palestine is not included in Polity IV’s list of countries, one can only assume it must fall under the purview of Israel, which renders the score even more risible. How can a country with 35 percent of its population disenfranchised be a “full democracy”? The same way, presumably, that the antebellum United States—with 3.5 million slaves—can be 90 percent democratic.
Similarly, countries that suffered colonialism at the hands of European and US “democracy,” like most of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East prior to 1960, are simply listed as “no data.”
Assumptions are also made about what constitutes a meaningful relationship between citizen and state. Countries that limit free speech are naturally docked democracy points, but those that leave 22 percent of children in poverty, like the US, can still be “full democracies.” How robust can a democracy be, though, when so many lack the resources, or the security, to push back against the system? How robust can a democracy be that routinely, and predictably, serves the interests of the super-wealthy?
2K notes · View notes
Hey liberals and Biden voters of any stripe, want to explain this to us? Hm?
3K notes · View notes
Just Trudeau things. 🙃
725 notes · View notes
The irony is conservatives will refute the study by using the very flaw in reasoning that these researchers identified
2K notes · View notes
Based on V’s pirated speeches to the nation, and on the climactic final scene, one infers that it is essentially symbolic, not structural; that liberation consists mainly of freedom of speech, freedom to protest—probably, vaguely, a democratic process. In short, liberalism.
And this seems unmistakably of its time. The film’s politics are those of the period immediately post-9/11, an explicit indictment of liberal willingness to sacrifice civil liberties for a sense of security. In the final scene, when Inspector Finch asks Evey Hammond why she wants to destroy Parliament, she responds, “This country needs more than a building; it needs hope.” Funny choice of words, as “Hope” is what we got in 2008, and look where we are now.
287 notes · View notes
"After the prohibition of surrogacy in India, the rhetoric that was glorifying the Indian women’s wombs as gifts for global sisters turned into expressions of sympathy primarily for the western intended parents. A stream of media articles reflected both cultural imperialism and re-orientalism: ‘India surrogacy ban dismays British couples’, one article in Telegraph, ‘Despair over ban in India’s surrogacy hub’ in BBC, ‘India proposes commercial surrogacy ban; live-ins, homosexuals worst hit’ in Hindustan Times, and ‘Surrogacy Bill violative of privacy rights’ (Sherwell 2015; BBC 2015; Gupta 2016). The sympathy towards western, homosexual and live-in couples and privacy rights seems to have taken over the concerns of human rights violation of the surrogate mothers.
The necessitation of surrogacy is justified by presenting infertility as a disease, a disability. Childlessness is socially constructed as a malady, arising from patriarchal hegemony of social norms pressurizing especially women to use artifical reproductive techniques. This myopic social and medical focus on women’s body to solve infertility and the perpetuation of objectification and commodification of women’s bodies is to fulfill patriarchal and commercial ends. Almost every article advocating for surrogacy begin with estimating the number of infertile couples or persons with infertility.
Possibilities of technologies, such as surrogacy, are assumed to enhance individual freedom, to control one’s own destiny by embracing the ideology of autonomy. But ironically, surrogacy contracts require women to hand over the control of her body along with her reproductive experience and the baby to another person, reinforcing gender bias. As long as individuals endure artificial reproductive techniques on their own body, the “my body, my decision” philosophy is relevant; however, when individuals begin to put another person through the same physical and psychological pain, and possibly even death, as is in the case of surrogacy, the philosophy of individuality becomes void."
A Transnational Feminist View of Surrogacy Biomarkets in India, Sheela Saravanan
148 notes · View notes
Chattel slavery literally never ended. Your country banned it in your country, that is all. It's a growing industry, along with many other forms of slavery. Slavery is a larger industry today than ever before, in terms of sheer numbers of forced laborers, but not by percentage of global population. It's only a matter of time before the total number of post-Emancipation Proclamation slaves outnumber the total of pre-Emancipation Proclamation slaves.
609 notes · View notes
1K notes · View notes