20646
This piece comes to us from Feminist Harry Potter, which while interesting has some deep problems which are exampled here perfectly:
A) This is a post colonial critique, not a feminist one.
B) These films present ethnicity and nationality for everyone (white, black and otherwise) as stereotypical.
1) Moody wears a Kilt, Pavarti wears a Sari, etc.
C) Notice how the book doesn’t say a goddamn thing about his robes one way or the other, he is in fact black and he does have a gold hoop earring.
D) Africa is a big place, it’s a continent with many varied forms of dress.
1) This garment shares little with West African Dashiki.
2) This garment is closer to the boubou, but the neckline, layering and patterns are all very different.
Nothing about Kingsley Shacklebolt’s portrayal in the movies calls for a feminist critique. Being a feminist means you deal with the issues of gender and gender roles in culture. While you may challenge the dominant hegemony with your work don;t conflate the two kinds of criticism, doing so dilutes the message of both.
Before you decide that something is _____________ist you need to sit down and do your homework. I’m no expert in African Fashion, but it doesn’t take long to look at Africa and realize that’s an over generalization. It also doesn’t take a lot of work to do a simple google search to find examples of “African Clothing” and see that this outfit doesn’t match up to them very well. Know what you’re talking about, cite your sources and you’ll do everyone a big favor.
(Source: feministharrypotter)
Check out this complete timeline of Doctor Who from 1963 to present, including episodes, seasons, companions, villains, and more. Scroll down to follow all the Doctor’s adventures through time. A Fantastic resource for any Doctor Who fan.
(Source: theamericankid, via the-absolute-funniest-posts)
Our real first gay president
The new issue of Newsweek features a cover photo of President Obama topped by a rainbow-colored halo and captioned “The First Gay President.” The halo and caption strike me as cheap sensationalism. I realize airport travelers look at a magazine for 2.2 seconds before moving on to the next one. I grant that this cover will probably get Newsweek a 4.4 second glance. I also understand that Newsweek is desperate for sales. Nevertheless, I doubt that the Newsweek of old, before it was sold for a dollar, would have pandered as shallowly.
The caption is a superficial way to characterize an important development of thought that the president — along with the country — has been making over recent years. It is also entirely wrong. Like the mini-furor a couple of months back about the claim that Richard Nixon was our first gay president, the story simply ignores that the U.S. already had a gay president more than a century ago.
There can be no doubt that James Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House. Moreover, the nation knew it, too — he was not far into the closet.
Today, I know no historian who has studied the matter and thinks Buchanan was heterosexual. Fifteen years ago, historian John Howard, author of “Men Like That,” a pioneering study of queer culture in Mississippi, shared with me the key documents, including Buchanan’s May 13, 1844, letter to a Mrs. Roosevelt. Describing his deteriorating social life after his great love, William Rufus King, senator from Alabama, had moved to Paris to become our ambassador to France, Buchanan wrote:
I am now “solitary and alone,” having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.
(via neil-gaiman)
(Source: kingruffalo, via the-absolute-funniest-posts)
