Discussing the hostility of the Church experience, as an introvert.
GMP is a great example of how not to write about rape and how not to start a conversation about consent. But we do need to talk about sexual violence. How do we do that thoughtfully and productively?
The Good Men Project’s recent posts are a particularly horrific and exploitative example of a narrative that centers the perspective of perpetrators, and their supposed needs and feelings, in the name of “humanizing” them.
The editors at the ill-named Good Men Project (GMP) are apparently on a mission to rehabilitate the public image of male rapists and convince people that most of them are “nice guys” and “good dudes.”
The internet has caught the vapors over Psy’s “anti-US past.” Here’s why this reaction has more to do with American exceptionalism and racist ideas about Asian masculinity than it does with principled opposition to rhetorical violence.
In the U.S., I have to go on a message-board to find others that understand my issues, whereas in Jordan I found someone I could converse openly and in detail with about my difficulty.
When I applied to an undergraduate study abroad program in Jordan, I never anticipated how it would change my perception of myself as someone with epilepsy, or that it would be an experience of how ethnicity, disability, and prejudice can connect.
I’m about to head out to my local polling place to vote. There’ve been a lot of discussions this election cycle about choosing between the lesser of two evils and whether or not it makes a difference (spoiler: I think it does).
A few more thoughts on Don Miller’s post about whether women want to be treated equally or like men. Firstly, about what inspired the post…