here’s the thing about immigrant narratives and why (white) people think they’re “sentimental”
it’s because it’s not just about the protagonist. in a lot of white American stories it’s all about the protagonist, the hero, and it’s JUST that person’s story. whenever parents or similar mentor figures come up they are often archetypal and one-sided, magically appearing to distribute advice and disappearing again. so rarely are their own stories included within the main narrative because they are not deemed important enough.
like step outside this Western centric mentality for one sec. so many Asian American narratives are real tearjerkers for the likes of myself because they include our parents’ stories that we know so, so well and have internalized. we’ve all heard it. they moved over here from China/Korea/Japan/Vietnam/India/whathaveyou to give us a better life, they sacrificed so much for us, they learned how to cook their own foods because nowhere here made it the way they liked it, and on and on. these stories are so much a part of our own, coming from an almost mythical Other place that we know to an extent and yet we don’t, that it’s almost impossible not to include in some way when writing our own stories.
in a lot of Western stories even when family backstory is included it is always framed around the narrator; the narrator eclipses most of it and understands that because of this, they must fulfill their destiny, or something along those lines. I would argue that in a lot of immigrant narrative we share the story space more equally with our family members and it’s really jarring to a lot of people who have grown up reading tales of Individualism and ME ME ME ME to be like “why did that writer include that whole chunk of his mom’s backstory when it’s extraneous to the immediate plot/you don’t need to go into such detail” oh but the writer does!
because we can never tell our own stories without including those we were brought up with!
disclaimer it’s late and I’m hella tired and rambling but that comment “oh this is way too sentimental” really cheezed me off okay why is it sentimental to talk about your parents we can’t all be drugged up rockstars who angst over sad girls and smoke cigarettes on Brooklyn rooftops while our parents play absolutely no role except to provide all that money that the narrator is constantly spending on booze and torn jeans
As a first gen immigrant, I love this super hard. However, I really don’t like how the OP equates ‘white’ with ‘people who have lived in America/Canada/UK etc to begin with’, because my Ukrainian immigrant friend’s experiences are just as valid and tearjerking as my own because her parents also had to learn the language and start from the most low-paying jobs. I won’t deny that their experiences are different, but since the USA and Canada are primarily immigrant-based countries, many people have stories about their family members moving and suffering hardships. It’s been more difficult for some ethnicities because of racism, but many of the basic experiences are the same.
True…but honestly, why can’t you just say “yeah, I don’t drink or smoke. personal choice” instead of creating this whole little subculture? People who don’t drink, smoke or use drugs, realistically, are kind of the majority. You aren’t special, you’re just obnoxious and judgmental.
Without makeup, my face is just a random pile of tissue, protein, skin cells, and cartilage. The random arrangement of that tissue, protein, and cartilage tells you nothing about my personality because I was simply born with it. Conversely, my makeup is not random at all. *I* chose it. ME. Not nature. Not my gene pool. Not strands of DNA over which I exercise NO CONTROL. Me and my personality chose this routine. And for that reason, makeup is the absolute closest I will get to self-expression on my face without prosthetic body parts. When a guy tells you he prefers you without makeup, he’s sort of telling you that he prefers it when you don’t make choices to advance your identity. He’s telling you that he prefers your body to your brain. Your brain is the reason why you applied that black eyeshadow. Your actual face and body are idle vessels through which you operate, but actually have absolutely NOTHING to do with who you are. So every time you make a decision to clothe your body or put makeup on your face, you’re making the decision to reflect your thoughts through the canvas that is your physical being.
you can, in fact, change the way your face looks without using makeup. Take a daily multivitimin and eat food. drink a lot. go OUT IN THE SUN, smile, laugh, frown, cry, squint, any of the thousands of ways that show who you are and what you do.
all of it shows a fuckton more than your concealer.
I understand why you may be offended that she believes a man who prefers her au naturel implies that he prefers her brain over her body. That said, I think your response is dismissive of people who decide to put on concealer instead of frolicking in the sun.
Most people do not decide to go outside into the sun or drink water or eat certain foods specifically for their face unless they are into skincare. Smiling, crying, squinting, grimacing, and laughing are all body functions that are more or less natural. In contrast, makeup is a fast and deliberate way to change the canvas of one’s face, and every time someone tells a person wearing makeup that they prefer them without it, regardless of whether they mean well, they are dismissing the minutes or even hours that person dedicated to creating a piece of artwork on their face. Even the concealer they chose was a result of hard work because finding one in your shade that doesn’t flake or melt off or sink into creases or emphasize dryness is pretty difficult. While I think it’s sweet that people compliment natural beauty, you had very little say in your own genetic lottery. By contrast, you can use makeup to create or disguise your cheekbones, change your lip shape, widen your eyes…these decisions are deliberate and these skills take a long time to learn.
You can tell a lot about me from my overflowing bag of lipsticks; you can also tell a lot about me from reading through this blog or looking at the pictures on my wall. All these things are a part of my deliberate self-presentation - just different facets of it. I think OP means that makeup, for her and many girls, is a form of self-expression, and she doesn’t appreciate it when people invalidate it, which I think is a perfectly understandable feeling.
I do apologize if I come off as defensive in this post - I’m a makeup enthusiast, if you couldn’t tell!
stop showering praises on pope francis he’s a misogynist homophobe: the musical
he’s not like regular misogynist homophobes, he’s a cool misogynist homophobe
Okay, I’ve been waiting for a while to explain a thing and this seems like as good a chance as any.
I was raised Catholic. I went to church every Sunday whether I wanted to or not. My sister and I attended a Catholic school from pre-k to eighth grade, that’s a decade each. Most of my family on my mom’s side is still Catholic.
In school, we were taught that there were certain things that a good Catholic had to believe. Some of those things were as follows: People who didn’t follow God’s word (as defined by the Catholic church, of course) were going to hell. Gay people existed, but gay sex was a sin, and same-sex marriage harmed the very definition of marriage as apparently defined in the Bible, at least according to my religion teacher. And, of course, abortion was murder, and should be 100% illegal, no exceptions.
During the 2008 election we were literally told that voting for Obama was a sin, because he “supported abortion”.
When my sister was in middle school, her class was asked to draw political cartoons. She had noticed, even at a young age, that our church had…certain priorities. She drew a cartoon of two collection jars, one labelled “Stop Abortion” and one labelled “Feed the Homeless”. The abortion jar was full of money and the other one was nearly empty. Later, her teacher pulled her aside and gave her a freaking lecture to make sure she was “on the right path”.
That is the Catholic church I grew up in, the Catholic church that I ran the hell out of as soon as I possibly could.
But now Pope Francis is here, saying, “Hey, guys, maybe we should lay off on the abortion and same-sex marriage stuff a little and try talking about this whole “feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless” stuff that Jesus was always going on about. Is he perfect? Hell no. Is he a major fucking improvement over the previous administration? HELL YES.
And he’s pissing people off, too. People are quitting the church over this. Some bishops are going out of their way to explain that the infallible pope was…mistaken, when he said that maybe atheists aren’t going to hell, that maybe we should stay out of other people’s business when it comes to things like abortion and homosexuality, that maybe, just maybe, we should try to actually help people who need it, you know, like Christians were originally told to do in no uncertain terms by Jesus himself.
So you know what, long live Pope Francis, the cool pope.
In summary: the Pope is hardly the wet dream of social justice, but in a corner of society that values tradition and conservative ideology more than anything else, he’s practically a liberal radical. He’s making progress in the areas of society that have all but shut the door to societal progression, and although he’s only taking small steps, it’s better than the standstill of yesteryear.
That, and Pope Francis is kind of limited by the constraints of the traditional Church mentality, he can’t exactly come in with radical leftist views that completely oppose the scripture and expect to remain Pope. He’s doing the best he can with what he’s got, really.
Yeah, I think I should be able to appreciate a prominent religious figure with worldwide influence including in politics for their involvement in challenging poverty and supporting indigenous rights and other good things while also recognising they don’t exactly have the most progressive view of my sexual orientation.
I'm so jealous of you, you seem so smart and accomplished. how do you do it?
I can assure you that I am not! I often make stupid decisions. I guess I’m just very stubborn and I plow on and don’t realize I’m being annoyingly stubborn until I’m already halfway there…so points for being slightly clueless? Thank you sweet anon <3
Some of my friends and school mates were asked to speak about their experiences growing up in the Middle East, and I’m still feeling conflicted about the blatant tokenization of our classmates based on where they come from. Yes, it’s interesting to put people from Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Egypt/India, and Pakistan up on a platform to speak, but they were all given questions beforehand and formulated predictable answers that the school wants to hear. I know this, because my friend showed me her notes and responses on our four-hour bus ride.
Their first question was ‘what surprised you about UWC Atlantic College?’ - of course, their answers were ‘openness, friendly people, big rooms’, etc. As my friend aptly put it, ‘what could they have said? The drinking culture? The apathy amongst some of the students here?’ one of my good friends has been effectively thrusted into the spotlight as a champion for girls’ education in Pakistan, and indeed she’s remarkable. However, unlike her friend Malala, she and her friend have been innocent bystanders until the Taliban shot them too. I felt discomfort at the way our school is putting our students in the spotlight and using them as a vehicle of saying, ‘look at how diverse we are! They all receive full scholarships! We are funding the future!’ and indeed, they are. They proudly claim that 60% of our students receive some form of scholarship, which means that 40% of our population of 350 can afford to dish out £50 000 ($80 000), top college tuition, for two years of glorified high school.
As for the forum itself, we got there at around 1:00 p.m. and were ushered into a big fancy boardroom in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, where we received a presentation by UWC alumni who work for this establishment, promoting the bank and the ‘good work’ they do in developing countries. Then, we got delicious sandwiches for lunch and got to the auditorium, where we listened to the CEO of Standard Chartered Bank talk about economic development. The audience was mostly UWC alumni and associates, plus the students from our school (many of whom are socialists). Inevitably, at the end of the CEO’s talk, my friend stood up and asked him about his opinion on how the endless pursuit of growth is fundamentally unsustainable. The CEO, Peter Sands, callously said ‘that’s a classic hashtag firstworldproblem question - whoever thinks they don’t need growth is quite privileged.’ I’m pretty sure it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the actual question, which made me raise both eyebrows. We then moved onto a panel about migration in the 21st century, and frankly, I’ve been in so many debates about immigration that it’s underwhelming to hear big names and experts (Oxford professors, presidents of NGOs, Rhode Scholars) rehash the same points - somewhat more eloquently - as I’ve done in regional debate tournaments. One person was more radical than others, and asserted that migrants have so little effect on the country’s economy that whether they move or not doesn’t have an impact. Another said that people should be able to move around whenever they want - because it’s ‘networking’. At the end of that panel, I asked them whether they believed governments in developing countries have an obligation to encourage their citizens to remain in their own countries to make it a better environment, since they have asserted that people migrate to find a better life and Yvonne Cass said that there is a lack of doctors in South Africa because the educated elite have moved elsewhere. One person said that governments can collaborate with their diasporas to further their own development, while another rambled on about…well, nothing. I suppose I shouldn’t have expected them to propose a solution, but it’s worrying when people are too reluctant to admit that they don’t have an answer.
Some people in the audience approached me afterwards and told me it was a great question and that they didn’t answer me sufficiently, which was also my feeling. After that panel, we had another panel about the model of education in the 21st century and whether it will be appropriate. Lubna, a journalist from Saudi Arabia, was invited to talk about women’s education in the middle east, but since the rest of the panelists were focusing on education in the west, her points seemed disconnected - which is a shame, because she seemed like an incredibly interesting person. She talked about how many women in Saudi Arabia are content - even defensive - of the traditional gender roles and restrictions, and that King Abdullah has been supportive of developing women’s education. The rest of the panelists pointed out that education isn’t good at developing character traits, while another mentioned that education isn’t meeting the consumer’s needs and that they need personalization. Many of the panelists at the conference didn’t have much of a connection with UWC, which kind of raises the question of why they were there in the first place, but their answers to questions have been on the large part unsatisfactory as well.
I have full, unabridged notes from the conference somewhere, which I may type up one of these days. After the conference we got pizza and great petit d’oeuvres - they had these delicious juicy grilled scallops with a spicy sauce that were SO FUCKING GOOD. I also talked to a few alumni who were friendly and interesting, which was nice. All in all, though, this forum was interesting but at the same time showed me that people in successful, prestigious positions are just people who are not very different from everyone else. The entire forum was very discussion-based as opposed to reform-based, aside from this one person who proposed several policy changes to empower migrants during the first panel. I don’t know how much I liked that focus, but I digress.
Ultimately, I’m glad I went. I guess I really did get something out of it.
Is pulling fire alarms for shits and gigs even legal?
I dunno. Luckily I don’t have to worry about that because I DIDN’T PULL THE FIRE ALARM. Nice try though.
Naw, but you thought that was a-ok in spite of it being against the law.
but ok guys real talk in all seriousness this poster is disgusting and we shouldn’t be allowing it
i have to agree. the woman is an idiotic bigot but this poster isn’t doing avfm any favours. they shouldnt have to resort to using an image of her to push their agenda. she’s already made an idiot of herself, you don’t have to do it for her.
I’m not sure this is their poster. It’s the wrong style. I think someone just used their and MRE’s logo.
In addition to a different style (something I can’t talk much about), the theme is very different as well from most other posters I’ve seen. It’s mostly calling feminism names but the only thing to back it up on the poster is one feminist saying “SHUT THE %*#? UP!”. Normally I would expect some kind of statistics or something more substantial which makes feminism look bad, if it is directly against feminism, without needing to tell people how bad it is.
If it is from AVFM it’s one of their worst posters for several reasons. I would like more information on this. Anybody could have done it and if somebody just took their logos they could have done a lot of damage to both AVFM and MRE.
Many people in Edmonton know about MRE and hate them because of the ‘Don’t Be That Girl’ campaign, mainly because the woman in charge of the Gender Studies department was one of the people who came up with ‘Don’t Be That Guy’. Most newspaper reports of their campaign have been negative. I won’t be surprised if it’s someone who is out to smear the MRE’s name, but I visited their site today and I was genuinely shocked. Their entire theme has changed, and they became much more controversial, to the point where I genuinely wonder if people have hacked into their website…