Quote
"

We’re talking about a democratic awakening. We’re talking about raising political consciousness, so it spills over; all parts of the country so people can begin to see what’s going on through a different set of lens. And then you begin to highlight what the more detailed demands would be, because in the end we’re really talking about what Martin King would call a revolution; a transfer of power from oligarchs to every day people of all colors, and that is a step-by-step process. It’s a democratic process, it’s a non-violent process, but it is a revolution, because these oligarchs have been transferring wealth from poor and working people at a very intense rate in the last 30 years, and getting away with it, and then still smiling in our faces and telling us it’s our fault. That’s a lie, and this beautiful group is a testimony to that being a lie.

When you get the makings of a U.S. autumn responding to the Arab Spring, and is growing and growing—-I hope it spills over to San Francisco and Chicago and Miami and Phoenix, Arizona, with our brown brothers and sisters, hits our poor white brothers and sisters in Appalachia—-so. it begins to coalesce. And I tell you, it is sublime to see all the different colors, all the different genders, all the different sexual orientations and different cultures, all together here in Liberty Plaza; there’s no doubt about it.

"

—

Cornel West, interview. Democracy Now!, 29 September 2011

A good response to people who keep demanding that the OWS protestors draw up some sort of platform of demands. That rarely happens in the early stages of liberation movements. At the moment, it’s about raising the consciousness of everyday Americans who have thus far accepted the notion that the U.S. is a democratic, fair, and equal society. It may be a strange notion to most Americans, but our country is one that—like the countries involved in the Arab Spring—is crying out for a democratic revolution.

Tags: cornel west democracy politics news occupywallstreet occupy wall street consciousness raising revolution power activism resistance class class warfare nyc
September 30, 2011
278 notes
Quote
"… the thing about patriarchy is that individual men, gay and straight, are often really wonderful people who you love deeply, but they have internalized some really poisonous shit. so every once in a while they say or do something that really shakes you because you’re no longer totally certain they see you as a human being, and you feel totally disempowered to explain that to them."

— Womens thread: the thread for women - wddp.org - Page 47  (via trenchantashell)

(via salome-rising)

Tags: misogyny sexism patriarchy feminism consciousness raising
September 05, 2011
3,157 notes
Link

Geek Girls and the Problem of Self-Objectification

Very interesting piece. I recommend reading the entire thing:

…[T]he sexisms that persist in geek communities are not special. They are not separable and inherently different from sexist thoughts and behaviors in the “real world.” They are part and parcel of regular ole sexism, not a special geek dude brand invented outside of patriarchy. So with that in mind, it’s important to remember that the sexualization of women is something that women and men consume and internalize all over the place. Though it does seem to be particularly bad in geek media. Video games, comics, science fiction, fantasy—these media forms are often at fault for promoting unrealistic (and, pretty regularly, physically impossible) standards of beauty. They fashion their female heroines and villains as sexy objects to be consumed, unlike their male counterparts.

As I said to Amanda Hess last year, being the sexy object is one of the places where geek women can find acceptance in their communities. From the interview:

“Too often, women in geek cultures are only welcomed if they are decoration, sexy versions of the things geek men love, not equal participants or fellow fans. Forever Geek […], for example, has, in just the past two months, posted with glee about female models naked except for high heels and stormtrooper helmets gracing skateboards, a car wash in which women dressed in sexy Princess Leia costumes washed cars, and Star Wars corsets. Geek communities love women, as long as their members don’t have to think of those women as people.”

[…]

But the actions of women are not the cause of their objectification. [….]The problem is that women who dress sexy, who frame themselves as sex objects, are rewarded by geek culture for doing so.”

Tags: geekery sexism stereotypes feminism gender men women cosplay objectification consciousness raising patriarchy nerds costumes
August 24, 2011
22 notes
Quote
"Black people can’t talk to white people about race anymore. There’s really nothing left to say. There are libraries full of books, interviews, essays, lectures, and symposia. If people want to learn about their own country and its history, it is not incumbent on black people to talk to them about it. It is not our responsibility to educate them about it. Plus whenever white people want to talk about race, they never want to talk about themselves. There needs to be discussion among people who think of themselves as white. They need to unpack that language, that history, that social position and see what it really offers them, and what it takes away from them. As James Baldwin said, “As long as you think that you are white, there is no hope for you."

—

Steve Locke, Why I Don’t Want to Talk About Race

This. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and ableism can be studied in the same way that you study geography or anatomy. No one is responsible for YOUR education but YOU.

Tags: race white privilege whiteness racism privilege education consciousness raising james baldwin truth
August 24, 2011
12 notes
Link

Excellent piece criticizing the idea that the scarcity of female geniuses is 'natural'

Benbow and Stanley found that within this talented pool, many more boys than girls scored at the highest level on the math SAT exam: a four-to-one ratio for scores above six hundred and a thirteen-to-one ratio for scores above seven hundred. But they made the bigger splash by speculating the high ratio was a consequence not of math education but of “endogenous” or innate, sex differences in mathematical talent. Newsweek seized upon their conclusion with the headline “Do Males Have a Math Gene?” while Time magazine declared, “a new study says that males may be naturally abler [in mathematics] than females.”

…. [T]he Benbow-Stanley study has been repeated since the early 1980s. The 2005 repetition found that there were 2.8 boys for each girl in the group which scored over seven hundred. Remember that the numbers were 13 boys to one girl in the early 1980s.

Innate sex differences have not changed in those fifteen-or-so intervening years. Instead, the smaller ratio of super-talented boys-to-girls must be caused by something environmental or cultural, and there is nothing to suggest that the most recent ratio is the lowest possible one.

It seems pretty clear to me that the male upper-tail advantage cannot be regarded as an innate explanation, given the above findings. Whatever may drive the observed gender differences has at least a sizable chunk of environmental causes.
Tags: science greater male variability hypothesis science! gender feminism consciousness raising sexism stereotypes men women statistics lies damned lies and statistics
August 19, 2011
79 notes
Text

In which I agree but also disagree about language policing

I felt compelled to comment on this post by madamethursday because I think the subject is interesting (and because I’m probably one of those grammar prigs s/he lambasts).

In my opinion, there’s a difference between posting a little graphic that bemoans the fact that many people mix up their/they’re/there and reposting someone’s personal commentary or story in order to nitpick about grammar or spelling. A BIG difference. The latter is definitely an aspect of the ‘tone’ argument and dismissive in a particularly shitty way. The former is not.

So I agree that going all Grammar Police on people—when it’s not your job to do so—is not only snotty, but a form of derailing.

BUT, there is a reasonable reason for the language rules that the OP decries: we use language is to communicate. Grammar and spelling rules ease communication. It would be difficult to get ideas across, particularly abstract and subtle ideas, if we were each using idiosyncratic versions of English.

An English teacher—a good one, anyway—isn’t trying to make people feel stupid, ashamed, or marginalized by teaching ‘correct’ grammar and spelling. They’re trying to give students the best tools to communicate in particular settings (formal, professional, academic). You have plenty of opportunities outside of formal education to learn slang, Ebonics, regional idioms, tech speak, and other forms of ‘incorrect’ English. You don’t have very many opportunities to learn ‘correct’ English outside of school.

Sure, you can argue that this is oppressive language policing, but the reality is that we live in a world where using ‘correct’ English in particular situations still matters. It is what it is. Fighting the power is one thing; surviving in the here-and-now is another.

So while I agree that ‘correct’ English has privileged class connotations, as well as a history of imperialism, sexism, ableism, and so on, I don’t think simply criticizing language rules for these sins is enough. Sometimes you have to speak the oppressor’s language in order to get through to them. Personally, I advocate giving marginalized peoples as many tools (including languages) as possible.

I also think the OP is vastly overestimating how much control language authorities have on enforcing usage rules these days. The U.S. isn’t France—oftentimes, the editors of Merriam-Websters and the MLA are frantically trying to catch up with a language that’s constantly, rapidly evolving.

The way we speak and write English changes all the time, which is why there are constantly new editions of dictionaries, style guides, and grammar books being published.

Why? Because the language authorities want to stay relevant. The rules they put in place are oftentimes the result of reviewing popular language use. I assure you that they don’t just sit in book-lined studies sipping sherry and pulling definitions and guidelines out of their asses. They’re trying their best to domesticate the unruly shape-shifting beast that is English so that we can use it to till our postmodern fields and harvest our feminist crops…

(Um, ignore that last metaphor.) But yeah—the problem isn’t that ‘proper’ English exists. The problem is people being assholes about it.

Disclaimer: I’m a well-educated U.S. academic and former editor with all the privilege these roles entail. I’m also fairly well-versed in postcolonialism, feminism, etc. and have studied language theory…all of which makes me disinclined to take an extreme position on either side. What’s wrong with moderation?

Tags: wall of text lit english writing grammar spelling words privilege authority power class race gender oppression consciousness raising assholes unpopular opinions education teaching mla dictionary
August 18, 2011
43 notes
Quote
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That’s our problem."

— Howard Zinn

(Source: socialuprooting, via mickyalexandria)

Tags: howard zinn quotes politics government class class warfare war military industrial complex poverty consciousness raising civil disobedience
August 15, 2011
301 notes
Photo
darkjez: unplugandrecharge: An Open Letter to People Regarding Touching Chocolate Hair this is a request from a white mother on behalf of her beautiful brown skinned daughter Thank you Rory, on behalf of myself & my white Mama!! Dear People Who Have, or May, Come Into Contact with My Daughter,Thank you so much for your interest in my daughter’s hair. Yes, it is beautiful, we both appreciate your compliments. Yes, she’s very patient and has no problem sitting to have her hair done. She’s been getting her hair done since she was very small and knows of nothing else; her hair regime is a fact of life and she doesn’t see it as the burden that you do. Nor do I.While asking me about my daughter’s hair, please do not start touching it. Just because I am a vanilla parent this does not mean that you have an “in” to touch chocolate hair for the first time. I have had too many people tell me, “Oooh, I’ve always wondered what their hair felt like,” while pawing my daughter. She’s not an animal, she’s a human being.We teach our children that strangers touching them in inappropriate ways is wrong and that they should tell an adult immediately. In our opinion, anytime a child is touched by anyone who feels that they have a right to do so, against the child’s wishes and without the child’s permission, is inappropriate.You see, every chocolate/jam/cheetos handprint on her hair from other children and/or adults is a mark on her dignity. She is small, but she does have personal space and a sense of self-worth. When you invade that space without her permission you are telling her that she has no rights to her body; that her desire to be left untouched is not as important as your curiosity.Even if your hands are clean, they still leave a an invisible mark.If you are sweet and kind enough to ask my daughter ahead of time if you can touch her hair, please do not be offended if she says, “No.” She is not being rude. She has no obligation to give the answer that you want. Her body is her own and if she does not want to share it with you at that moment, then please respect her rights. Don’t tell me that she’s being “disobedient” or “rude” or huff and walk away. In doing so, you are indirectly communicating that she owes you a piece of herself for no other reason than because you asked. She does not.No, I do not do unique hairstyles for my daughter to attract your attention. I do them for her, to help foster a loving relationship with her natural hair so that she will grow up loving how God made her, hopefully minimizing any desire to alter herself to match someone else’s standard of beauty. Do not tell me that if I didn’t want her touched that I shouldn’t be doing all these hairstyles that say “look at me, touch me.” Do not blame the victim for your indiscretion or lack of self control. If you are a teacher, please note that the first day of school is often very intimidating and making a really big deal about hair – on that day, or any day – while inviting other teachers and/or parents to come over to touch and finger-through a child’s head of hair, can be extremely overwhelming. Yes, she may be one of the few chocolate children at your school, but drawing so much attention to her will only highlight how different she is. Although I can address the issue with you while I’m present, I put my trust in you that you will protect my daughter throughout the day. Allowing classmates to put their hands in her hair or play with her beads is not only distracting to the class, it is also akin to hitting; it is a violation of my daughter’s person and I have to believe that you will do your best to keep this from happening. Just because it might not physically hurt her, doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt her character.I remember back in the days of being pregnant and how it used to bother me when strangers would come and touch my belly without my permission. I know that people struggle with holding back when their curiosity gets the best of them, but nevertheless it seemed only right to me that someone should ask before placing their hand(s) on my stomach.But I am an adult. I have already formed my identity and self-worth and can hopefully express my discontent in constructive ways. Children are still learning about themselves in the world. They are not as certain of themselves, and if you cross a line they will often question the line, not your actions.In conclusion, I pray that this letter is well-received, that those who may have done this in the past feel convicted and think twice before doing it again. For those who have never experienced chocolate hair, may it be a helpful insight into our beautiful world. For people who have recently welcomed a child with chocolate hair for the first time into your extended family, may you respect the child’s personal space and be kind and gentle with your questions and curiosities. For all, please remember that you are helping to shape the character of the adults of tomorrow; if we cannot respect the bodies of our children today, how can we expect them to respect themselves in the future?Blessings,Rory, Boo’s Mama

darkjez:

unplugandrecharge:

An Open Letter to People Regarding Touching Chocolate Hair

this is a request from a white mother on behalf of her beautiful brown skinned daughter

Thank you Rory, on behalf of myself & my white Mama!!

Dear People Who Have, or May, Come Into Contact with My Daughter,

Thank you so much for your interest in my daughter’s hair. Yes, it is beautiful, we both appreciate your compliments. Yes, she’s very patient and has no problem sitting to have her hair done. She’s been getting her hair done since she was very small and knows of nothing else; her hair regime is a fact of life and she doesn’t see it as the burden that you do. Nor do I.

While asking me about my daughter’s hair, please do not start touching it. Just because I am a vanilla parent this does not mean that you have an “in” to touch chocolate hair for the first time. I have had too many people tell me, “Oooh, I’ve always wondered what their hair felt like,” while pawing my daughter. She’s not an animal, she’s a human being.

We teach our children that strangers touching them in inappropriate ways is wrong and that they should tell an adult immediately. In our opinion, anytime a child is touched by anyone who feels that they have a right to do so, against the child’s wishes and without the child’s permission, is inappropriate.

You see, every chocolate/jam/cheetos handprint on her hair from other children and/or adults is a mark on her dignity. She is small, but she does have personal space and a sense of self-worth. When you invade that space without her permission you are telling her that she has no rights to her body; that her desire to be left untouched is not as important as your curiosity.

Even if your hands are clean, they still leave a an invisible mark.

If you are sweet and kind enough to ask my daughter ahead of time if you can touch her hair, please do not be offended if she says, “No.” She is not being rude. She has no obligation to give the answer that you want. Her body is her own and if she does not want to share it with you at that moment, then please respect her rights. Don’t tell me that she’s being “disobedient” or “rude” or huff and walk away. In doing so, you are indirectly communicating that she owes you a piece of herself for no other reason than because you asked. She does not.

No, I do not do unique hairstyles for my daughter to attract your attention. I do them for her, to help foster a loving relationship with her natural hair so that she will grow up loving how God made her, hopefully minimizing any desire to alter herself to match someone else’s standard of beauty. Do not tell me that if I didn’t want her touched that I shouldn’t be doing all these hairstyles that say “look at me, touch me.” Do not blame the victim for your indiscretion or lack of self control. 

If you are a teacher, please note that the first day of school is often very intimidating and making a really big deal about hair – on that day, or any day – while inviting other teachers and/or parents to come over to touch and finger-through a child’s head of hair, can be extremely overwhelming. Yes, she may be one of the few chocolate children at your school, but drawing so much attention to her will only highlight how different she is. Although I can address the issue with you while I’m present, I put my trust in you that you will protect my daughter throughout the day. Allowing classmates to put their hands in her hair or play with her beads is not only distracting to the class, it is also akin to hitting; it is a violation of my daughter’s person and I have to believe that you will do your best to keep this from happening. Just because it might not physically hurt her, doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt her character.

I remember back in the days of being pregnant and how it used to bother me when strangers would come and touch my belly without my permission. I know that people struggle with holding back when their curiosity gets the best of them, but nevertheless it seemed only right to me that someone should ask before placing their hand(s) on my stomach.

But I am an adult. I have already formed my identity and self-worth and can hopefully express my discontent in constructive ways. Children are still learning about themselves in the world. They are not as certain of themselves, and if you cross a line they will often question the line, not your actions.

In conclusion, I pray that this letter is well-received, that those who may have done this in the past feel convicted and think twice before doing it again. For those who have never experienced chocolate hair, may it be a helpful insight into our beautiful world. For people who have recently welcomed a child with chocolate hair for the first time into your extended family, may you respect the child’s personal space and be kind and gentle with your questions and curiosities. For all, please remember that you are helping to shape the character of the adults of tomorrow; if we cannot respect the bodies of our children today, how can we expect them to respect themselves in the future?

Blessings,

Rory, Boo’s Mama

(Source: meandering-musings, via squeetothegee-deactivated201111)

Tags: bamf african americans white people race racism feminism consciousness raising anti-racism awesome parenting children education hair
August 05, 2011
869 notes
Photoset

Thylane Blondeau is 10 years old. 10 years old.

The past 20 years or so have made it clear that the fashion industry hates women and idealizes and sexualizes childishness. I guess casting actual children to pout and pose in couture was the next ‘logical’ step.

I’m disgusted at Jenna Sauers for praising editorials featuring Blondeau as “refreshing” and Jezebel for publishing the post (and no, I’m not going to link the post to give them more traffic. They’re trash.). There is nothing satirical about these pictures. The girl is styled, posed, and photographed exactly as if she were a decade older.

I’m glad Feministe criticized the Jezebel piece and offered actual feminist analysis of the story:

….Blondeau has no reason to know anything about being sexy. She has no frame of reference for sexy–she knows look at me, turn this way, point your chin down, open your mouth just a little, look bored, open your eyes, close your eyes, now arch your back, now look sleepy. And while it’s definitely a sign of too sexy too soon, it’s also a sign of… obedience.

And that’s one of the real values of younger models over their older counterparts. An 18-year-old can, with an appropriate application of diet pills and cigarettes, present the body of a twelve-year-old. But if you want a biddable girl who doesn’t know enough to speak out against things that she isn’t comfortable with, you need someone inexperienced in the ways of the industry, awed and a little bit afraid. And maybe ten years old is a bit early for that, but just a few years down the road, her fellow models are going to be wandering into the lions’ den.

[…]

We talk a lot about the choices we make in the way we outwardly present our feminism…..And we talk about modeling feminism for the girls who are coming after us to help guide them in a positive direction. As part of that, we need to make sure we’re sending a strong message about disobedience. Our girls need to know that while they do have to play a respectful part in the social contract, they also have the right to stand up for themselves when they feel the need, even if it’s against authority figures. Even if it’s against their friends. Even if it’s against us.

There’s no guarantee that they won’t still end up walking runways somewhere, if that’s their choice. But if they’re comfortable turning down that job because the clothes don’t feel right, turning down that guy (or girl) because the timing doesn’t feel right, or even just passing on that cigarette with Agyness Deyn because frayed, acid-washed denim vests just plain aren’t right, we’ll have done our job…..
Tags: disgusting fashion french vogue magazines models patriarchy feminism consciousness raising jezebel jezfail jenna sauers
August 05, 2011
522 notes

About

portrait

I'm a feminist, anti-racist, down-with-The-Man/up-with-The-People super-lefty. My default modes: outraged, nerding out, withering scorn, drily amused.

I credit image sources with a click-through link whenever possible. If you need me to remove something, please drop a note in my ask.

Check out my other blog for twee, schmancy stuff.

People I follow

  • alpha-lima-lima-papa
  • ffffffound
  • nezua
  • supersoygrrrl
  • reelbrains
  • glossylalia
  • ellephanta
  • liquidnight
  • joiesdevivre
  • thenoobyorker
  • ginger-gal-is-in-hiding
  • dustoffvarnya
  • mentalflossr
  • wine-loving-vagabond
  • mickyalexandria
  • menwomenandelectrodaggers
  • novazembla
  • 14kgoldnyc
  • jessica-messica
  • nationalpost
  • thelefthandedwifeinhiding
  • affably
  • collegehumor
  • youcrashquims
  • notsodarling-
  • quichelotta
  • karnythia
  • bedbugsbiting
  • azspot
  • apsies
  • athenasaurus
  • catsandscience
  • amkgoesrogueish
  • nom-chompsky
  • thusspakekate
  • ladonnapietra
  • morbidfashion
  • inothernews
  • rodmanstreet
  • bookling-stormborn
  • scoldylox
  • felixinclusis
  • missworded
  • thedisgruntledgradstudent
  • missbananafish
  • bunnyfood
  • ipomoeaandthestarstealers
  • paxamericana
  • velocipedestrienne
  • uhuh-she-said
  • donnapirana
  • federov
  • communitythings
  • beautiful-portals
  • robot-heart-politics
  • life
  • huffingtonpost
  • slightly
  • crimesagainsthughsmanatees
  • occupadified
  • nanner
  • enjoli
  • feelinghellastabby
  • miss-mary-quite-contrary
  • shortformblog
  • welovepaintings
  • espritfollet
  • tehblackbirdflies
  • thepoliticalnotebook
  • cracked
  • thecranium
  • kyssthis16
  • haguenite
  • labratintraining
  • wicnet
  • zuky
  • statusquoantebellum
  • monasequeda
  • laughingsquid
  • joetheblogger
  • nobodysdiary
  • eschergirls
  • historicalupstart
  • soupsoup
  • daisen-in-garden
  • jonahray
  • thetart
  • newshour
  • photojojo
  • elleeldritchunderground
  • curtcole
  • ultraprism
  • -bobella-
  • ramou
  • librariesandlemonade
  • think-progress
  • neon-loneliness
  • kanyelujah
  • neil-gaiman
  • scarygodmother
  • poboh
  • animalstalkinginallcaps
  • mamafratelli
  • buzzfeed
  • curiousgeorgiana
  • programmersbeingdicks
  • theparisreview
  • confessionsofamichaelstipe
  • a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a
  • riverwaltz
  • washingtonpoststyle
  • carefreemanicpixiecoloredgirls
  • starlightdiner
  • splitsider
  • paper-is-patient
  • problemsolver
  • motherjones
  • heyfranhey
  • unconsumption
  • someauthorgirl
  • brooklynmutt
  • rosa--sparks
  • longreads
  • barackobama
  • ronniedobbs
  • newyorker
  • thenewinquiry
  • lunatictoons
  • shrinkinglibrarian
  • designcloud
  • wetheurban
  • whitewhine
  • sweethomestyle
  • velocicrafter
  • shoelust
  • kelsium
  • streetetiquette
  • sdotmarymartha
  • luckymag
  • fridaphile
  • putthison
  • kitschyliving
  • artandopinion
  • boniverotica
  • ttssgg
  • wwnorton
  • tetw
  • theonion
  • theworldwelivein
  • lalie
  • nypl
  • tmagazine
  • fromscandinaviawithlove
  • happyfeminist
  • beaverhausenx
  • discoverynews
  • ridic
  • welldressedfortheapocalypse
  • ghoulnextdoor
  • libraryland
  • thedailywhat
  • artchipel
  • lostateminor
  • guardian
  • anedumacation
  • threewordphrase
  • shevilfempire
  • kateoplis
  • utternutter
  • nationalgeographicmagazine
  • scribnerbooks
  • nortonn
  • beautylish
  • stfuconservatives
  • sequined-k
  • youmightfindyourself
  • hystericalanduseless
  • tragedyseries
  • thehighshelf
  • bowiecadmium
  • wnyc
  • scissorsandthread
  • bbook
  • steveyeun
  • newsweek
  • npr
  • flavorpill
  • christianvivanco
  • pitchfork
  • lakebandit
  • curiositycounts
  • theavc
  • rollingstone
  • salome-rising
  • olio-ataxia
  • imremembering
  • latenightjimmy
  • theatlantic
  • nprmusic
  • villagevoice
  • wnycradiolab
  • wmagazine
  • book-aesthete
  • 5east
  • laphamsquarterly
  • nprfreshair
  • weandthecolor
  • hooplehead
  • whynotshesaid
  • officialssay
  • thenewrepublic
  • cheatsheet
  • inessita
  • redlightpolitics
  • poptech
  • theeconomist
  • areasofmyexpertise
  • iconoclassic
  • wilwheaton
  • utnereader
  • msavignon
  • pbstv
  • hbogirlsisthebestshowonearth
  • animalsbeingdicks
  • good
  • teallikethecolor
  • catversushuman
  • littleleaguecomic
  • vintageblackglamour
  • fucknojezebel
  • shesarejector
  • pratt
  • vmburkhardt
  • vanityfair
  • dieworkwear
  • the-feature
  • kueneman
  • comiques
  • peril
  • enchantingimagery
  • sympathyfortheartgallery
  • fimoculous
  • latimes
  • missing-e
  • wthellokitty
  • theamericanprospect
  • omgpintobeans
  • soundopinions
  • engelen
  • charlietangofoxtrot
  • wellofcromulence
  • hautemacabre
  • guardianpolitics
  • kasmi-nuko
  • darkjez
  • pileofmonkeys
  • ohmycc
  • aljazeera
  • zvekisfarriery
  • catsareassholes
  • ellaminnowpq
  • ofanotherfashion
  • musesofdesign
  • slaybelle
  • pantslessprogressive
  • the-ephemeral-magpie
  • missmossblog
  • fieldandsea
  • egryan
  • danharmon
  • magimpalor
  • philnoto
  • pictoryblog
  • searchingforstyle
  • resplendentb1tch
  • catscientists
  • portmanteaunail
  • undercoverangryangel
  • ngfmsnaps
  • hg-
  • iwdrm
  • anthonybourdain
  • catsarehats
  • allyourlovearebelongtome
  • skibinskipedia
  • nailingit
  • wolfienoms
  • mizjenkins
  • szymon
  • aa6x7
  • damekatharsis
  • lareviewofbooks
  • askdeanpelton
  • weirdette
  • thetakeaway
  • shoesdl
  • annaholmes
  • hufflepug-inactive-account
  • dr-wtfox
  • lostintherenaissance