Kameimori

What I am currently interested in hide

The Problem of Slytherin

bronzedragon:

Or, “the negative treatment of Slytherin House in canon.” 

To me, “the Problem of Slytherin” (which I’ve nicknamed based on the infamous “Problem of Susan” from CS Lewis’s Narnia) is one of the major flaws of the series. Not as bad as my issues with DH, certainly, but something that detracts from the series as a whole. 

Again, this is a somewhat unpopular opinion: there are plenty of people who feel that the portrayal of Slytherin was fine as-is, many who argue that it was inevitable because of the books’ first-person Gryffindor-centric POV, and some people who believe that an ambition-oriented House is more likely to produce evil people than one that values intelligence/wit, hard work/patience, or bravery/fame, particularly given Salazar Slytherin’s penchant for conflating greatness and blood purity, making a House that seems pre-made for prejudice.* 

*I think that Slytherin’s orientation on blood-purity could have been written as something that was a rational response to his historical period, but I don’t think that JKR intends it to be viewed that way. If mass persecutions were occurring and lots of wizards were dying, then you could make a case for hiding/not accepting Muggle-borns - but again, this is something that’s more grounds for an AU fic based on what we know of Rowling’s Wizarding history, in which witch-hunting/problems didn’t get to be significant until three to four centuries after the Founders’ era, and in which the dangers weren’t that significant in any case. (Yes, that’s no consolation to Nearly Headless Nick, but we’re led to believe that persecutions weren’t that terrible a danger in the great scheme of things. In canon, Salazar Slytherin is not Wizarding Magneto, who believes that wizards need to create a wholly separate society of their own because the real world has given them concrete evidence they’ll never be accepted otherwise - although, again, I do believe that Salazar Slytherin-as-Wizard-Magneto, a man with some valid points but extreme views and methods, could successfully exist in fanfic.)

But, even given the idea that Slytherin held an indefensible, reactionary opinion for his own time, I believe that the books could have - and should have - written Slytherin differently. Because, as it is, there is a huge problem with the general portrayal of Slytherin characters, and, moreover, with the idea of House Unity and that entire theme, which became so important in OotP.

This is long, so I’m placing it behind a cut.

Read More

Gentrification does not solve poverty, it merely shunts the poor out of the city…

-

Oakland: the city that told Google to get lost | The Guardian 

"A few blocks away, Maggie Larios, 30, a latina single mother sharing a cramped apartment with her two children, is all too aware of that choice. She earns just enough from a care-home job to pay the $685 monthly rent. But the landlord who owns the block is trying to evict her and other tenants who have complained about mould, cockroaches and broken windows. They suspect the neglect is intended to oust them so he can get in more lucrative tenants.

"The mould has made me sick," Larios croaks, indicating her throat. "When we went to court one of my neighbours had bugs on her. You should’ve seen the judge’s face." With her budget, Larios stands little chance of finding another apartment in Oakland. "I don’t want to be homeless. My kids and I went through a very bad experience in shelters." But inevitably they will be priced out, she says. "It’s gonna happen. A few years ago, to see a white person here was unseen footage. Now you see them walking the street even at night." Resistance could perhaps slow but not halt gentrification, she says. "Money talks, bullshit walks." Larios has kept one asset in reserve for emergencies: her long, luxuriant hair. "When the time comes I can sell it for $400.""

(via america-wakiewakie)

This very same shit is happening on my block RIGHT NOW. Literally right now. It started with the classier looking super markets, then the white people, now the neglect has gotten so bad our buildings is starting to mold. Ceilings falling (one time it fell while my brother took a shower Idk how he didn’t get hurt when it happened). Police coming into our building exercising excessive force on folks that normally hang with the people who live here. A lot of police presence started coming with the amount of white people showing up around here. We had to limit the times we go to the super market we been going to for over a decade and go to cheaper ones cause ever since white people started showing up they started bumping up the prices on everything making it harder for us to afford that shit. Gentrification is real as fuck, and it’s happening in Washington Heights so fast I’m scared we’ll lose our vibrant ‘Little Dominican Rep.’ community in exchange for more white people, starbucks and overpriced food markets and fucked up buildings waiting to kick out minorities that don’t have the privileged pay of a normal white person in the city.

(via kenobi-wan-obi)

Same here in Pittsburgh. Our city is set up so that the poor live outside the rim of downtown Pittsburgh in neighborhoods that span outward. Though a few neighborhoods are nice (mainly b/c our city structures itself so that certain neighborhoods are overwhelmingly one race/culture/ethnicity) the actual suburbs are outside the city limit. Those people commute in to work (cause you know ain’t too many PoC holding down the white collar jobs in the financial sector of the city).

A few years ago though, following the major attention from the simultaneous Superbowl and Stanley Cup wins, and then the G20 summit that was hosted here, gentrification has been ramped up 1000%. WHite folks want the areas directly outside of downtown back, and are pushing Black folks further out, away from the city and its resources.

Historically Black neighborhoods like the Northside and East Liberty are slowly turning into ritzy, artistic hangouts for young folks with money (ie: white people). Both neighborhoods have had MASSIVE overhauls to residential spaces and can now boast lots of coffee shops. Historically white neighborhoods, like Bellevue and Penn Hills are becoming hubs for Black folks who still want to live in nice neighborhoods but can’t afford the rising prices of the “nice” new places in their own neighborhoods. Funny that the current attitude Pittsburgh media has about these neighborhoods is how they are “going to seed.”

(via xtremecaffeine)

1. Let me find out xtremecaffine lives in my city.

2. I grew up in Penn Hills and now live very close to East Liberty (as in a block away depending on how you look at it. And work in the city (Strip District. My church is in Homewood.

Gentrification rapidly got rid of a lot of the black residents and businesses. They aren’t trying to hid it at all. Hotels are being erected that locals cannot afford to sleep in. Morbid shit like  Anthropology and Free People sit not even 5 minutes from the hood. They tore down a housing project and put the biggest Target in Pittsburgh complete as in escalators and Starbucks.

Artistic hubs for young black folks were priced out of their rent (RIP Shadow Lounge). The Caribbean Restaurant and African Restaurant are gone. In it’s place are eateries that not only can you not afford to go to, they will also look at you crazy for being black and entering. Like we are strangers.

(via queennubian)

Reminder: DC Nation Boycott of Cartoon Network ↘

hythe:

Good morning, everyone! This is just a reminder post about the on-going boycott of Cartoon Network, due to their actions regarding the DC Nation shows, creators, and fans. (Here’s more info if you missed what happened last week.)

This boycott’s extremely simple: don’t watch Cartoon Network,…

ruthlessamor:

ayellowbirds:

punishandenslavesuckers:

There is a real actual Spiderman comic where he pretends this is his power and the bad guys drop their weapons and give up. XD And it makes me happy. 

Here it is:


No one can ever say spiderman is not the best superhero of all time.
No one.


Lol

Rape jokes are not jokes. Woman-hating jokes are not jokes. These guys are telling you what they think. When you laugh along to get their approval, you give them yours.

-

Thomas Millar, Meet the Predators  (via fuckinq)

my mom told me this when i was like 6. though not specifically about rape jokes, she just said “when people are being mean and you laugh, you are agreeing.”

(via postwhitesociety)

“when people are being mean and you laugh, you are agreeing.”

(via blue-author)

(Source: mehreenkasana)

http://writingfail.tumblr.com/post/74103093687/polytropic-liar-dirtydirtychai ↘

polytropic-liar:

dirtydirtychai:

Moniquilliloquies.: About Cop Watch

buttart:

punkpedagogy:

ibibobo:

apihtawikosisan:

ladyatheist:

i-am-septima:

baddominicana:

poemsofthedead:

note-a-bear:

So there are groups that do this,…

Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.

Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.

In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:

The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.

In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately.

-

[x] (via neighborly)

As a teacher, I give girls what I hope is a lot of attention.  I don’t know if I give girls their fair share, but I aspire to, especially after noticing that boys are willing to use their greater share of teachers’ attention to get girls who they feel aren’t being quiet and docile enough punished.  I have therefore acquired a reputation for “caring more about the girls.”  This has had two marked results: Some straight boys have gotten more hostile toward me, and most girls have gotten more confident around me.  This makes me think I’m doing something right.

Longer thoughts on how this phenomenon relates to sexual harassment in classrooms, if you’re interested: The girls figured out I won’t report them if they hit boys who are sexually harassing them, I’ll only report the boys.  This led to an increase in how often girls got the last word and boys got smacked in my classes, and, also, to a DECREASE IN HOW OFTEN GIRLS GOT SEXUALLY HARASSED.  The sexual harassers seem to have been depending on the sort of “equal blame” and “retaliation is never warranted” and “don’t hurt others’ feelings” perspectives so many schools try to instill in kids; the sexual harassers were usually the ones bringing me into the situation by saying, “Miss, she hit me!  You should write her up!”  Once they figured out I was only ever going to respond, “If you don’t treat girls like that, they won’t hit you,” the girls got more confident and the sexual harassers largely shut the fuck up.

In schools, fighting against sexual harassment is often punished exactly the same as, or more severely than, sexual harassment — a lot of discipline codes make no distinction between violence and violence in self-defence, and violence is ALWAYS the highest level of disciplinary infraction, whereas verbal sexual harassment rarely is.  Sexual harassers, at least in the schools I’ve been in, rely heavily on GETTING GIRLS IN TROUBLE WITH HIGHER AUTHORITIES as a strategy of harassment — creating an external punishment that penalises girls for and therefore discourages girls from fighting back.  Sexual harassers are willing to use their greater share of floorspace to ask to get girls who won’t date them punished.  By and large, teachers do punish those girls when they swear or hit.  Schools condition girls to ignore sexual harassment by punishing them when they speak up or fight back instead.

Once the sexual harassers in my classes understood that girls wouldn’t be punished for rejecting them, they backed off around me.  And there started to be a flip in what conversations I get called into — girls are telling me when boys are being nasty (too loud and dominant), instead of boys telling me when girls are being uncooperative (louder and more dominant than boys think they should be).

(via torrentofbabies)

reblogging again for the wonderful commentary.

(via partysoft)

(Source: colinfirthhasmoved)

"Another aspect of this dispute may be plain racism on both sides, both those who support the casting and those who don't, as racism is something common to all humans and not exclusive to and race or social structure. While the "offended" fans may deny it, their aggressive negative reaction to the casting is just as much racist as the aggressive reactions of those supporting it." ↘

fatpinkcast:

jedifreac:

fatpinkcast:

This is an excerpt from a comment on George RR Martin’s livejournal that he or an assistant approved.  No one has responded to challenge this.   Since I already have one comment languishing his queue for over five days (submitted before this comment was), but I still think this comment needs a response, I am discussing it here.   

OP says that the “offended” fans (referring to, presumably, the question in the comment that started it all, fans who want diversity in Martell casting) "deny it" but our "aggressive negative reaction" is just as much racist as the aggressive reactions of those supporting it.”

So… I want to address this.  While I can’t claim to have seen every aggressive negative reaction from fans who are pro-diversity in ASOIAF or Game of Thrones, I think it is important to address labeling this reaction as “just as much racist” or “just as bad.”

Because it’s really, really not—because of history, because of contexts, because of modern systems of oppression.    

This is not a repudiation of the idea that “everyone is prejudiced,” which I wholeheartedly agree with and there is ample evidence for.    This is a repudiation of the idea that fans who are pro-diversity in Game of Thrones are “just as much racist” as the fans that want an all-white Westeros.

To use an example, a recent tumblr meme showcases U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg stating in response to a question about how many women should be on the Court (there’s been no more than 3 out of 9) that the entire court should be women.  "There have been nine men there for a long, long time, right? So why not nine women?"

People have used this 2010 interview to argue that Ginsberg is being “just as sexist” towards men.   She is, after all, advocating that she would be perfectly happy if men were excluded from the Supreme Court.  But is Justice Ginsberg japing about an all-woman court really just as sexist as the historical and current reality where women have never made up more than 1/3 of the Court, were left out from joining the court for the first 200 years of it’s existence, and that the entire court has always been appointed by a man?  In what reality would Ginsberg be able to clap her hands and make it so, and what is the likelihood that we would ever see a woman-dominated, much less all-woman court for the length of time that we had an all-male Court?    That wouldn’t happen, for a number of systemic reasons, but also because we understand the impact of excluding people from representation.  How could her statement possibly be “just as sexist” as the actual implementation of sexist policies that anti-women rhetoric supports?

Likewise, someone who is LGB could vehemently express a desire to take away straight people’s right to get married, but they wouldn’t get very far. Yes, they would be expressing taking away a right based on someone’s sexual orientation—but there would be no power behind the statement.  They wouldn’t be backed up by dozens of policies actually enacting their beliefs. They certainly wouldn’t be able to get governments to take them seriously.  They wouldn’t be surrounded by a community that actively supports their desire to marginalize at the expense of others.  

When a franchise is called “too white” by (PoC and white) fans who care about diversity, best case scenario a token brown character gets added and worst case scenario no one hears the complaints.   All the big franchises remain 90% white.  Have you seen what happens to franchises that are deemed “too brown”?   “Too black”?   “Too Asian”?   Rule of three’d, ignored, white lead inserted, shut down, whitewashed.  

But there’s a false equivalency:  that critiquing an imbalance is somehow “just as bad” as fostering an imbalance.

Those are just examples, but here’s the thing:  Through the past two weeks advocating about Dorne and casting, I’ve been told that my use of the term “people of color” is just as racist as the racism I purport to fight.   

Really? Just as racist?  Just as racist as the concept of whiteness, which has been used to drive discriminatory domestic policies such as slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow?     The term “people of color” has and could possibly be used to deal just as much damage to white people, like we would want it to and you’d even let it?     In what reality?

Just as racist as the slurs?  We’re a tiny voice in the cacophony, and yet there are people who think that we’re such a threat to their fandom universe, that they’ve resorted to insulting us with degrading, dehumanizing language to make us feel less than.   I’ve been called a c—-, my friends have been called n——-s just for stating our opinions about Dorne, opinions which are nowhere near influential or even popular.    We can’t be “just as” oppressive—if we even wanted to—because there are no equivalent words that exist in our language/culture that are remotely just as sexist or just as racist as the terms used against us.

How can we possibly be “just as” racist, when we don’t have any systemic supports? There’s a whole system of mainstream fandom that is vehemently defending a white Westeros, trying to shut down people for even daring to think that the Martells are brown.  We couldn’t even have a roundtable on the mainstream fan site for the show on this topic without sexualizing the all-women panel, without jokes exoticizing women of color, without fans complaining GTFO.  One of GRRM’s co-authors and co-editors is gleefully calling people “delusional” for wanting PoC Martells.   No one in GRRM’s inner circle is as vociferously vouching for us.  The HBO show further validates these fans’ view of a white Dorne, as does GRRM himself. 

That’s the thing—we don’t have any major support systems behind us; we don’t have HBO; we don’t have GRRM. We, who want diversity, are relying on our small systems of support to advocate for diversity and yet we’re being disparaged at every turn.  When we say “We want the Martells to be PoC” we don’t actually have the power to make huge swaths of people see the Martells as PoC.   When fans say “We want the Martells to be white” the powers behind the entire franchise stand behind them and can make it so.

Calling out inequity isn’t “just as” racist.  Supporting diversity isn’t just as racist as opposing diversity.

The word that really gets to me is the idea of “just as,” because nothing here is equal.  And that’s not what fans are asking for, even.  

Unlike the fans who are demanding that every great House in Westeros be white, the fans who are speaking out for diversity aren’t asking that every House in White Westeros be made all PoC or even be proportionately stocked with people of color.

They are only asking that the one major house out of seven—the one that was  that was consistently described with orientalizing language and orientalizing imagery—be represented by people of color.

Somehow, this is “equally as racist” as wanting all of the Westerosi to be white.  

-M

I just saw someone online say that people who are boycotting Ender’s Game are “just as intolerant” as Orson Scott Card.   Uh, no.   Again, refusing to give money to someone who is advocating that an entire group of people should lose their rights is not just as bad as advocating that an entire group of people should lose their rights.

Because of the support from listeners from this post I went ahead and posted a truncated version of it (removing the RBG tangent) on GRRM’s livejournal in response to the initial comment.

George RR Martin (or whoever helps mod his LJ) deleted it without unscreening it.

The OP I was replying to did get an email notification about it, though, and decided to send me a PM about it. In it, OP maintains their original opinion. OP defines “political correctness” as “the systemic support of racial diversity in media” and explains that this “political correctness” contributes to racism.

OP maintains their original position and writes “intentionally making a character “colored”(or changing a characters “color”) in order to appeal to a certain segment of the reader/viewer market is wrong at it’s core as it disrupts the creative process of storytelling with marketing ambitions of greater sales.”

OP also says that “associating with” (relating to?) a character “by their skin color” is a form of “primitive thinking”

(“primitive”—really…but I guess only when people of color do it?)

So I guess I just want to say… About the whole “just as much racist” or “you guys are just as bad” deal.

We’re told that wanting the Martells to be PoC contributes to racism and disrupts creativity.

We get described with pejorative terms like “colored” and “primitive” for wanting what white fans already have in spades. We’re called “just as much racist” and it goes unchallenged.

Fans who want to see diversity in House Martell don’t get systemic support from the author or fandom—my comment was deleted. Their comment still stands.

-M

youkaigirlatthegate:

spankmeagainplease:

dzhoslibrarian:

thatwasfunwhileitlasted:

thenakedacacia:

innocenceoauguries:

hugsndrugz:

spankmeagainplease:

Feel free to sexually harass me if you’re male. You know what they say “Boys will be boys.”. Although I’m not sure any of you will want to do that since I’m not very modest, therefore not attractive.--------The new principal at my school used two phrases while addressing new dress code rules to a class."Modest is hottest." and "Boys will be boys."He should have said something more along the lines of: “The school dress code was established to provide our students with a safe and orderly learning environment that is free from distractions.”Let’s start with the phrase “Modest is hottest.” Shall we?Modest-Having or showing a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities, and value.If modest is hottest, then it’s not modest.You are literally sending the message to young girls, who are already struggling with self confidence, that hiding their body makes them more attractive. You are establishing a sense of shame in these young, developing minds and bodies. A human has the right to wear whatever they feel comfortable in. Showing less skin doesn’t make you any more attractive. Showing more skin does not make you any less attractive. When someone calls you attractive that just means that they are attracted to you.At what point in your career did you find it appropriate to define my “hotness”? Why are you at all concerned with how “hot” I am? You are teaching us, through modesty, to be objects of sexual arousal. I’m sorry, but I don’t dress myself to look “hot” for anyone. I dress myself as a way of expressing myself and my body. “If covering up my body is supposed to make people sexually/physically attracted to me, then how would those people feel if I decide to have sexual relations with them, without clothes on?” “How am I supposed to love and feel proud of my naked body and develop a sense of sexuality when exposing my body is deemed shameful and unattractive?” Since when should being “hot” be my concern. I don’t want to be with someone who just thinks I’m hot. I want to be with someone who loves and respects all the parts of my mind, personality, and body. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “How to be hot.”.My body is not a sinful temptation that needs to be hidden. My body is not your personal, sexual object. My body does not overshadow my character. My body is not any more sexual than a man’s body. My body is not here to look “hot” for you.Next up is “Boys will be boys.”Being a boy refers to your gender. That’s all.It does not make you constantly sexually aroused, animalistic, or sexually uncontrollable, but for some reason society has come to the conclusion that you are this stereotype. This is extremely sad. This gender stereotype is unfair to all men. By telling them who they are as a man you are absolutely taking away their moral agency. “But he’s a teenager. He’s raging with hormones.” You don’t think I’m raging with hormones as well? Believe me I am. Men are not stupid. They are not unable to see when someone is not consenting to sex. It’s not ‘in their nature’ to rape because they are a man, it’s not ‘in their nature’ because IT’S WRONG TO RAPE SOMEONE. Raping someone is a cognitive choice. (how modestly the victim dresses does not affect them being raped). When the few people that do sexually harass people happen to be male and you use the excuse “Boys will be boys.” you are not only excusing their behavior, you are condoning it. It’s this “Boys will be boys.” mentality, culture, and attitude that condone sexual assault. Whenever the excuse “Boys will be boys.” is used, it’s just an exercise of male privilege. It’s this attitude that condones sexual assault. You are giving them a free license that makes it okay for them to be sexually violent, that says “Well I’m a boy, it’s just who I am.” Sex needs to stop being about “no no no bad dirty gross shameful” and start being about “Yes. Let’s have consenting sex because I want to.” Consent. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “Well you know how they are… Boys will be boys!” Boys are not sexually uncontrollable.Boys do not have a genetic, animalistic, violent nature.Boys are not born with a natural desire for destruction or control.Despite what society and culture keeps trying to cram down everyone’s throat, having a penis doesn’t make it okay to sexually harass someone. The false idea that men can’t control themselves is so unfair and completely ridiculous.


—————————————————————————————————————————————-


The next day He called me down to his office to discuss my concerns. (Students and teachers told him about it, which I expected)




I spent a good hour and a half arguing with the principle about his comments when he called me down to his office, today. I offered to send him what I posted if he was interested in reading it. He said “No, that won’t be necessary.” I explained to him that I wanted him to read what I wrote and I would appreciate it if he did. He said “No, I don’t really care to read it. That’s okay.”I asked him what he meant by the phrase “boys will be boys” and he explained that if a girl is inappropriately dressed that it can lead to inappropriate, sexual touching and staring (sexual harassment). If a boy chooses to sexually harass someone, it’s his choice no matter what his gender is.He explained to me that boys are more “wound up” than girls are. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that so I asked him for a different adjective and after a minute of mumbling he chose the word “aggressive” but then followed that up with “…well I don’t think that’s the correct word to use…”. I agree, not the best word to use, eh? I asked him to explain why boys are different than girls in this regard and he said “Well to start, all boys are attracted to girls…” I interrupted with “No. There are actually boys who are attracted to other boys.” He laughed and said “Oh, yes of course!”… I guess that part must have slipped his mind.I asked him, in general, what the difference is between girls and boys. He said that boys “misbehave more” and are “outgoing”. He said that girls are “reserved”. That’s all. That’s the word he used, “reserved”. Boys and girls are different because they have different organs and hormones. Being a girl doesn’t automatically make me reserved. Just like being a boy doesn’t make you automatically misbehave. I explained to him that by using the phrase “Boys will be boys.”, he is excusing and condoning bad behavior from boys, such as sexual harassment and rape. “But that’s not reality, that’s your opinion.” he said. He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” I told him that the phrases he used were sexist and stereotypical and unfair to all genders. I explained to him that many students and people of society were offended by what he said and the phrases he used. I told him that I thought he should apologize for what he said and explain to students and society that this kind of message is not okay or appropriate.He said he wouldn’t apologize for that, but he would give me an apology, which was “I’m sorry you feel that way.” After he dodged almost every question I asked by sharing his plans to improve LHS, he decided that he had had enough of not being able to answer my questions or concerns and ended our discussion by saying “I’m going to end this discussion.” and I was sent back to class.






Yes. This needs to go viral.

Marion, I love you so much for this. You are the catalyst for change in this world. No matter how small the impact<3 I feel honored to know you.

We passed 1000 notes! Yes! I’m so proud of my Marion!

There is so much wrong with what this principal is doing that I can’t even list it, but yeah here’s your takeaway:
He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” 
They are disrespectful because you have specifically told them they can do whatever they want and you will excuse it because they’re boys!

This definitely needs to go viral, but with the name of the principal and the school.

Lakeland Senior High School and his name is Mr. Martinez

What a ridiculous asshole. Jesus.