anat. israeli-american living in socal. phd student. lives on coffee.
Background Illustrations provided by: http://edison.rutgers.edu/

unwomanlythoughts:

microaggressions:

When a financial institution asks me my “mother’s maiden name” as a security question. Because it’s assumed that I have at least one and no more than one mother in my life AND that she married AND that she gave up her own name AND that that part of her identity was erased enough from my public history so as to be a password to access my private information.

Holy crap, I never realized.

Reblogged from koreaunderground  16 notes

… These communal developments and conflicts are common in societies where people experienced the cold war in forms other than the “long peace”—the idiom with which the historian John Lewis Gaddis characterizes the international environment in the second half of the twentieth century, partly in contrast to the war-torn era of the first half. Gaddis believes that the bipolar structure of the world order, despite the many anomalies and negative effects it generated, contributed to containing an overt armed confrontation among industrial powers. As Walter LaFeber notes, however, this view of the cold war speaks a half-truth of bipolar history. The view represents the dominant Western (and Soviet) experience of the cold war as an “imaginary war,” referring to the politics of competitively preparing for war in the hope of avoiding an actual outbreak of war, but the identification of the second half of the twentieth century as an exceptionally long period of international peace would hardly be intelligible to most of the rest of the world. The cold war era resulted in forty million human casualties of war in different parts of the world, as LaFeber mentions; how to reconcile this exceptionally violent historical reality with the predominant Western perception of an exceptionally long peace is a crucial question for grasping the meaning of the global cold war. According to Bruce Cumings, it is necessary to weigh the dominant “balance of power” conception of the cold war, on which the idea of the “long peace” is based, against the reality of the “balance of terror” experienced in the wide world.
—Heonik Kwon, The Other Cold War

… These communal developments and conflicts are common in societies where people experienced the cold war in forms other than the “long peace”—the idiom with which the historian John Lewis Gaddis characterizes the international environment in the second half of the twentieth century, partly in contrast to the war-torn era of the first half. Gaddis believes that the bipolar structure of the world order, despite the many anomalies and negative effects it generated, contributed to containing an overt armed confrontation among industrial powers. As Walter LaFeber notes, however, this view of the cold war speaks a half-truth of bipolar history. The view represents the dominant Western (and Soviet) experience of the cold war as an “imaginary war,” referring to the politics of competitively preparing for war in the hope of avoiding an actual outbreak of war, but the identification of the second half of the twentieth century as an exceptionally long period of international peace would hardly be intelligible to most of the rest of the world. The cold war era resulted in forty million human casualties of war in different parts of the world, as LaFeber mentions; how to reconcile this exceptionally violent historical reality with the predominant Western perception of an exceptionally long peace is a crucial question for grasping the meaning of the global cold war. According to Bruce Cumings, it is necessary to weigh the dominant “balance of power” conception of the cold war, on which the idea of the “long peace” is based, against the reality of the “balance of terror” experienced in the wide world.

—Heonik Kwon, The Other Cold War

Reblogged from wretchedoftheearth  95,293 notes

tariqk:

cognitivedissonance:

After threats against her life, Anita Sarkeesian canceled an upcoming talk at Utah State University. Gamergate trolls are celebrating on Twitter while simultaneously dismissing the threats as nothing. Does this read like nothing to you?

“I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.”

The email’s author threatened to murder feminist women indiscriminately in a mass shooting. And because carrying guns on campus outweigh the right of students and guests to be safe, Anita Sarkeesian canceled her talk.

BUT WE SHOULDN’T FEEL THREATENED, RIGHT?

BECAUSE IT’S JUST THE INTERNET, RIGHT?

The bullies won this time. And if you think this shit isn’t dangerous, I’m fresh out of fucks to give and I’m not restocking any time soon. It’s goddamn wrong to to dismiss this by claiming the author isn’t serious. Elliot Rodger’s rantings were dismissed until it was too late.

This. Is. Not. OK.

That comment on how videogames don’t cause school shootings?

Well, now. See that? That’s over 15 years work, of advocacy, ruined.

Everything gaming advocacy tried to assert, that videogames were art, that violence can be separated from the medium… all now rings hollow.

How does it feel to know that this may very well be #gamergate’s most lasting and bitter fruit?