Some women are conditioned to be fragile and weak, and to believe that it's a sin to outperform a man. Her feminism would involve allowing women to be strong.
Some women are expected to be strong at times when they can't. Her feminism would involve reassuring her that it's okay to not be strong.
Some neurodivergent people are raised to believe that they're too stupid to ever amount to anything. Their disability activism would involve reassuring them that they're capable.
Some neurodivergent people are raised to believe that they're smart and gifted, and are expected to live up to impossible standards. Their disability activism would involve allowing them to fail, make mistakes, be stupid, etc.
Some children are constantly reminded "you're the child, I'm the adult" in order to deny their autonomy. Their youth rights activism would involve treating them like an adult at times when they feel ready for it.
Some children are treated like adults in order to justify increased expectations or to downplay abuse against them. Their youth rights activism would involve allowing them to be a child.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to oppression. Each individual person's experience is different. Whatever trauma is caused by their oppression, the activism should focus on undoing it.
Infographic made by be, information found from the website below
mapresources.info (this website has further articles, books, ect cited)
these facts aren’t all directly related to maps, but they relate to things often brought up along with them.
this is intended to educate people and spread unbiased information, if you find that there is misinformation or an inaccuracy, then if you wish: please share this respectfully
Disrespectful and ingenue comments will be deleted
(~tags for reach~)
That TV show wasn't created by Netflix it was created by workers exploited by Netflix.
That comic wasn't created by Marvel it was created by workers exploited by Marvel.
That video game wasn't created by Nintendo it was created by workers exploited by Nintendo.
Stop giving capitalists credit for things artists make!
We on the left have to realize that someone saying that their god is real and divine but that your god/gods aren't real or aren't gods should be seen in the same light as someone saying their gender is real and valid but that your gender isn't real or is a disorder of some sort. It's hate speech and shouldn't be socially acceptable.
Very valid concerns! We do have an alternate flag that differs a lot from theirs if that's of any interest! /info
two radqueer ideologies that seem similar at face value due to their aesthetics but are actually starkly contrasted, quidditsm and consistent progressivism i think both of these provide an interesting and cohesive look at how radqueer liberation might be achieved so i made this chart to compare and contrast them
just to clarify i'm not taking a side on either of them, i just wanted to analyze them alongside each other
what are your thoughts on these?
Consent, as described by the Oxford Dictionary, is permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
Consent applies to many stuff, not just sexual advances. From letting someone borrow your pen, to drinking tea, to hugs. I will be using the tea comparison for this.
Consent does not simply mean "both parties love each other". One can love someone but not consent to certain stuff, or may consent to stuff with those they don't particularly care for on an emotional level. If you ask someone if they want tea, and they say "Hell yeah, I love tea!" then great, that is active consent. They do indeed want tea. If they respond with "I'm not sure, maybe?" then you can still make that cup of tea if you want to, but don't be mad if they don't drink it when you offer it to them. And if they don't drink it, don't make them drink it. Just because you made it doesn't mean you are entitled to have them drink it.
If they respond "No, I don't want tea." then don't make them tea at all. Don't be mad at them for not wanting tea, don't annoy them until they give you until they tell you "Fine I want tea". That is coercion and it doesn't change their actual mind about whether they want tea or not. It is not consent.
If they say "yes, sure! thank you." but when the tea arrives they don't actually want the tea, don't make them drink it. They may have changed their mind. Sure it can be annoying because you went through all that effort to make them tea, but they still have no obligation to drink the tea just because of that. They did want tea, now they don't. It's okay for people to change their minds, don't make them feel guilty of that.
If they decide while drinking that they actually don't want tea, then don't make them drink the rest of it. Again, it's okay for people to change their minds, do not make them feel guilty of that. And if they're unconscious, then don't make them tea at all. Unconscious people can't answer the question "Do you want tea?". You may have asked them when they were conscious and they may have agreed, but now they're unconscious. make sure they're safe, and, this is important, don't make them drink the tea. They may have agreed then, sure, but unconscious people don't want tea.* If they were conscious when they started drinking it but then passed out, don't make them drink the rest of the tea.*
If they're not in the right mind, say, mentally unwell, then don't offer them tea at all, even if they say they want it or deserve it. They need safety, and comfort, not tea. You can offer later when they feel better. If they said yes to tea once, don't expect tea time always forever whenever you want. Don't come up to them unexpectedly and make them drink tea saying "But you wanted tea once!". Just because they wanted tea one day doesn't mean they want it anytime forever.
For both parties involved:
Are they actively saying "yes, I want it"?
Do they know to the fullest extent what they're in for? What they're agreeing to?
Are they allowed to change their mind at any given time and have it be respected by the other party?
Is there safety precautions? (such as safe words)
Are they on an equal level with no power imbalance that could put either party in jeopardy should they change their minds or say no
If the answer to all of these is yes, great! That falls under consent. If the answer to any of these is "no" or "maybe" then that is not consensual.
*Some points in the first part are more nuanced, like in the case of a contract for example. In such a case, if everything in the contract fits in the checklist above, awesome!
It’s solar and wind and tidal and geothermal and hydropower.
It’s plant-based diets and regenerative livestock farming and insect protein and lab-grown meat.
It’s electric cars and reliable public transit and decreasing how far and how often we travel.
It’s growing your own vegetables and community gardens and vertical farms and supporting local producers.
It’s rewilding the countryside and greening cities.
It’s getting people active and improving disabled access.
It’s making your own clothes and buying or swapping sustainable stuff with your neighbours.
It’s the right to repair and reducing consumption in the first place.
It’s greater land rights for the commons and indigenous peoples and creating protected areas.
It’s radical, drastic change and community consensus.
It’s labour rights and less work.
It’s science and arts.
It’s theoretical academic thought and concrete practical action.
It’s signing petitions and campaigning and protesting and civil disobedience.
It’s sailboats and zeppelins.
It’s the speculative and the possible.
It’s raising living standards and curbing consumerism.
It’s global and local.
It’s me and you.
Climate solutions look different for everyone, and we all have something to offer.