As a woman, I can’t post pictures containing my nipples on Facebook. Facebook’s nudity policy considers male nipples acceptable to publish, but female nipples are considered against their nudity rules unless engaging in breast feeding, with direct mouth to nipple contact shown.
I can technically exist topless in the UK, but as a woman my nipples being visible is accepted only on the vague wording that I not display “intention to cause distress, alarm or outrage”, a distinction that doesn’t apply to men’s nipples.
I can’t post pictures containing my nipple to Pintrest or Instagram either, where as male users of those services can post topless pictures.
Today, I want to answer a simple question. As a trans woman, what day did my nipples begin to break rules, laws and community guidelines?
So, let’s start a ways back. This is a picture of me at age 16. At the time…
Perhaps, my favorite would have to be Ibsen’s A Doll House, especially for its shocking ending (and not because I haven’t read the others…) Without spoilers, Ibsen was inspired by the belief that “a woman cannot be herself in modern society,” since it is “an exclusively male society, with laws made by men and with prosecutors and judges who assess feminine conduct from a masculine standpoint.” Ibsen himself used the most subtle details including the concept of mimetic and diegetic space, sartorial metaphors (think Sailor Moon transformations but more meaningful), and much more in his depiction of the relations between the wife and husband in a traditional Victorian household (thanks, AP English Literature). For any reader who enjoys a melodrama, especially one involving debts, secrecy, and Italian dancing, I highly recommend this play.
The best plays of Henrik Ibsen Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) is undoubtedly the most famous Norwegian playwright who has ever lived. He wrote a number of classic plays in a variety of modes and genres, so in this post we’ve limited ourselves to five of Ibsen’s very best plays. Hedda Gabler. The role of Hedda Gabler […]
That Cleary eventually ended up writing children’s books feels the way the paths of a great many talented people feel: both inevitable and magical, the result of a lot of hard work mixed with a certain amount of luck. Upon becoming a librarian after school, she recalls another librarian wondering about how she could get to be so good at her job:
“Miss Remsberg also said that she did not understand why the children had liked me so much; I treated them the same way I treated adults, of course. That was the way I had wanted to be treated as a child.”
Outside the remarkably low creativity, the article is honestly nothing but an entertainment piece, fashioned by a follower of a boring brand of identitarianism. The rest of her work not follows that the white men in the United States should be dealt justice for the crimes of white South Africans in the South Africa, but that the course of justice is acceptable as if disfranchisement should beget disfranchisement in spite of our country’s now general consciousness of disfranchisement as a breach of universal human rights. Unsurprisingly, the author does nothing to credit liberalism with its celebration of ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc. Instead, she champions a society where membership of a group is met with marginalization and/or bounties. An example of a society such as this would be Garland’s fantasy of a United States that decides to disfranchise its majority based on the crimes of their ancestors and/or people of similar race.
However, in the end, Garland makes the supposition that her radical ideology is not only necessary albeit “unfair” but also implicates that the literal disfranchisement of the majority in favor of the minority is an acceptable choice. Whether this is through violent revolution or legislation is made vague, but the plan seems largely implausible, given the United States’ violent ties with “taxation without representation”. It was because of this, that I had trouble distinguishing whether the article was satirical or not, reducing an entire social movement to a page only championed by out-of-touch, likely privileged, and self-described “feminist” college students midst their completion of a Gender Studies MA degree.
I certainly hope that Huffington Post, if they continue to employ the ramblings of left-wing authoritarians, does not quickly degenerateinto a hotspot for Garlands of the Western world to tinker on to produce more unproductive, aggressive solutions to global inequalities. Regardless of whether Caucasian men are responsible for the atrocities worldwide, I thank the Lord that the United States is still a functioning constitutional republic in protection against these crazed ideologues.
Dangerous, Milo Yiannopoulos’s new book, doesn’t come out until March 14, but it’s already #34 on Amazon, and #1 in 3 categories. On Friday, based on preorders, it had risen briefly to #1. Milo was paid $250,000 as an advance by Simon and Schuster, and stands to earn much more than that given the sales.
Those many people who have protested Milo’s appearances will be angered by the Dangerous‘s sales, and Sarah Silverman and Judd Apatow even called for boycotting of the book. What was clear to some of us, however, is that these…
When I used to get grants from government agencies like the National Institutes of Health, nobody, including the NIH itself, ever vetted my results. Although my research was funded by the taxpayers, I was free to disseminate it through publications, which were, of course, peer-reviewed. But they weren’t reviewed by the government.
That policy, however, apparently doesn’t apply when the taxpayer-funded research is actually done by government agencies themselves—at least not in this new administration. According toThe Guardian and the New York Times (both are rewrites of Associated Press Reports), as well as other venues, the Trumpsters have put into play a new policy—one that demands that all scientific results released to the public first be vetted by POLITICIANS. As the NYT reports, this hold also applies to climate-change studies (my emphasis). Now the report is a bit unclear, as it implies that only existing data be vetted, while future work…
Ladies and gentlemen, if you’re an American, hear the words of your new Vice President as he disses evolution. The first one is from 2002, with Pence emoting on the floor of the House of Representatives. Pence is making that old argument that evolution is “only a theory,” which is clear when he argues that evolution is not a FACT. By now we should all know what a genuine scientific theory is—and it’s not just a guess or an idle speculation. He then asks that “other theories of the origin of species” be taught, like the creationism adhered to by this nation’s founders—a creationism described in the book of Genesis—or the “theory of intelligent design.” He then says that the “truth of faith” will become apparent, whatever that means.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades: here is your Vice President:
At The New York Review of Books, James Fenton reports from the night shift in Manila, giving us a glimpse into the war on drugs in the Philippines, from “buy-bust” undercover operations to EJKs (extrajudicial killings).
An EJK I covered went like this. It was the middle of the night and the family was asleep. Masked men barged in. “Where is Fernando?” said an intruder. A woman answered: “There’s no one called Fernando here.” At this point, an eight-year-old girl woke up her father, Ernesto. As he awoke, Ernesto said, “Oh.” He was shot immediately in the middle of the forehead. The intruders escaped.
They nearly always escape. At one such scene in the north of Manila, a man had been shot in a warren of a building, where the passageway was almost too narrow for two people to pass. And there was only one exit, a set of…