words

“The fundamental difference between the 19th century romantic novels and the contemporary romances that borrow heavily from them is in the self-possession of the heroines. Although the unmarried and all but dowerless Elizabeth Bennet and the orphan governess Jane Eyre are in positions of greater social vulnerability than their contemporary counterparts, neither 19th-century heroine is willing to sacrifice self-respect in order to gain financial security or love. …By contrast, the scenes in which Bella Swan and Anastasia Steele literally fall at the heroes’ feet and rely on the heroes’ strength to stand foreshadow each heroine’s willingness to stay in a relationship with a man whose dominance overwhelms her sense of self, and without whom she seems lost.”

Kristina Deffenbacher, Professor of English at Hamline University in Saint Paul, Minnesota: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/159709-lesser-shades-of-jane/#.UCHs_6LE1jI.facebook

(via cmtilney)

What 19th century romance novelists were doing, which most modern ones are not, is very carefully examining, discussing and criticising the world around them in a conversation that was almost entirely held between women. Novelists during this period, especially romance novelists, were almost exclusively women, as were their readers. Men were still expected to read and write poetry if they were going to read and write any kind of art, because poetry was the higher art form, and also accessible only through the classical education that was denied to most women at the time. So women wrote (and read) novels, which were derided as ‘low’ forms of entertainment until men like Walter Scott and Charles Dickens came along and legitimised the medium by writing the first ‘historical’ and ‘state of the nation’ novels. 

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is probably one of the subtlest and smartest critiques of the way women like Elizabeth Bennett - self-possessed, opinionated, well-read, passionate - were portrayed in the media in the late 18th and early 19th century. A young, ‘over’-educated woman with opinions of her own was probably the most derided figure in the medium, soundly mocked as utterly self-deluded, ugly, undesirable, raised by fools and liked only by fools; at best she’d end up eventually repenting all her previous opinions and meekly settling down to spinsterhood, at worst she’d end up dying tragically by the end of the novel whilst its real heroine, a stereotypical feminine angel, married happily having surrendered herself entirely to her husband. Pride and Prejudice turned this formula on its head, making Elizabeth the desirable heroine because of her opinions, her education, her self-possession, and fiercely criticising the idea that a woman who gives up her entire self to (the idea of) a man/a marriage, can ever be truly happy (see, Mrs Bennett, and Charlotte, even Lydia). 

In essence, the original, great romance novelists of the late 18th and early 19th century, were doing their best to engage with and subvert the problems they saw for women in particular in the world around them, especially in the ‘pop culture’ of the age, commentating in the only medium available to them. The current generation are interested only in pandering to popular culture, not taking it apart and shaking it up and calling out its bullshit - and therein lies the problem. 

(via gnimaerd)

(via feminismfreedomfighters)

“

‘The Lone White Gunman’ is a half-truth. They are never lone, but they are always armed. And they are always armed because America has no qualms about arming them. Arming them is, in fact, the America way—coddled and enshrined in the Constitution. White Supremacist Capitalist Heteropatriarchy prevents us from analyzing the pathology of these young white men and their sexual obsessions with weaponry, forbids us from seeing them as a part of a frightening continuum, blocks us from recognizing white male bodies as infinitely dangerous, and distracts us from seeing the American government’s complicity in their carnage.

I’ll tell you this: When I enter a public space, whether it be a movie theater, an airport. a political rally, or school grounds, I’m not really looking out for black boys or Arabs; I’m looking out for white boys.

”

Son of Baldwin (via sonofbaldwin)

This is the realest shit ever. As much as it’s portrayed everywhere that POC are armed and dangerous, I will go on to say that I’ve never been worried about a POC being armed. In all my years of living (which isn’t very long), I never knew a single POC with a gun, but I knew all the white people in my life that had guns…and there are many. Maybe it’s all the pictures they take of themselves at the shooting range. But we’re worried about “Daquan with the dime bag of weed”

(via chasingdunamis)

This was a discussion that I was trying to avoid (racially based conversations are debilitating, mentally and psychologically, and I’ve had more than my fair share of them in the past week), but I agree with this quote and the commentary above. 

Brown people are branded as dangerous, unpredictable, and suspicious from the time they are born. Even when we are victims, there will always be people that will assume that we deserved to be harmed, that the end of our lives means one less menace to our society.

White people are almost always given the benefit of the doubt, the benefit of sympathy (“He seemed like a nice guy”, “I wouldn’t expect him to do something like this”, “Maybe he was just having a tough life”), even though they tend to be the very ones pulling out guns and committing mass murder in large, public spaces. 

It’s confusing and angering. Not because I don’t understand it, but because its allowed to happen every single day. 

(via isitscary)

(via adjslafladjgds-deactivated20121)