h

Kiana Khansmith
$LAYYYTER

roma★
NASA
wallacepolsom
styofa doing anything
almost home
No title available
cherry valley forever

Janaina Medeiros
Peter Solarz

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Today's Document
YOU ARE THE REASON

Product Placement
Cosimo Galluzzi

★

No title available
One Nice Bug Per Day

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Netherlands
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Guatemala
seen from United States
seen from Spain

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from Nigeria

seen from Portugal
seen from United States

seen from Montenegro
@andi93
babe. I know we’re all going thru a lot rn but I just wanna give u the heads up that sesame streets future is in jeopardy. hbo has chosen not to renew it for new episodes (a series that has been going since 1969) and the residents of 123 Sesame Street no longer have a home :(
n all seriousness sesame street is such an important piece of living media. it has been around for DECADES and from day 1 highlighted the importance of diversity empathy and education for children in a fun way. their mission statement is “Helping Kids Everywhere Grow Smarter, Stronger, and Kinder”. it’s been such an influence for so many people at a formative age. it’s creators made it w the intention that it could be a resource for underprivileged kids and help them prepare for kindergarten. thousands of people have learned english from our friends on sesame. pls (at media corporations) don’t let a beloved cultural phenomenon die
You mean to tell me that
The man who just led police on a wild goose chase for 5 days and left decoys that basically trolled the cops chasing him just suddenly shows up at a random McDonald's in broad daylight with the gun, a written manifesto in his pocket, and all of his equipment conveniently on him
A minimum wage employee at McDonald's ratted on him
He just happened to show up just as people were really starting to calisfy in their opinions and were clowning endlessly on the cops
Yeah, you'll excuse me if I find this hard to believe
Also re: the fact it’s normal to have a period of time where you have no friends: sometimes this means no “real” friends aka still have people you know from work, school, family, neighbors, acquaintances, etc etc you interact with but are not close with and couldn’t go to for anything on any deeper level. But sometimes it actually does mean no friends. No social interaction, nobody to call, no other option, don’t talk to anyone for days, don’t know who would find out if you died. The thing is there really is coming back from both of those situations ofc it takes a good deal of work and can feel like pulling teeth to put yourself out there but god it pays off. You can always start over from scratch, and it’s true most people are just as lonely as you are
Two things that I think are way more common than most people realize because few people want to admit to them is having a period of time where you have no friends & never having really dated someone well into adulthood. The second one is observation but I find when I tell people a few years ago I had no friends it ends up resulting in them telling me that they also used to have/currently have no real friends. When I first was getting social again and felt like a feral child raised by wolves while all my peers had moved on w their lives my therapist told me “most people are as lonely as you are” and at the time I was like okay cope 😑 but now looking back she actually could not have been more right
A STREAKER CUT THE ACTUAL CONTESTANT OFF AND BLEW THROUGH IT LIKE HE’S SONIC THE FUCKING HEDGEHOG WHAT THE FUCK
power move
aerodynamic
guy who didn’t realize this was his last day in the timeloop
the cameras fucking kept on him like oh shit we’ve gotta tape this shit
I couldn’t decide which comment I wanted to reblog with so I chose both:
Reblog if you understand and have felt the pain of your glasses never being clean no matter how many times you wipe them
Clue (1985) dir. Jonathan Lynn
Same, honestly.
“Many people seem to think it foolish, even superstitious, to believe that the world could still change for the better. And it is true that in winter it is sometimes so bitingly cold that one is tempted to say, ‘What do I care if there is a summer; its warmth is no help to me now.’ Yes, evil often seems to surpass good. But then, in spite of us, and without our permission, there comes at last an end to the bitter frosts. One morning the wind turns, and there is a thaw. And so I must still have hope.”
— Vincent Van Gogh
“If I am worth anything later, I am worth something now. For wheat is wheat, even if people think it is a grass in the beginning.”
- Vincent van Gogh
ID in alt text. Here is the cited CDC survey. I'd appreciate people spreading this around as much as possible to help raise awareness.
Note: Rape being defined in a way that excludes being forced-to-penetrate is not universal. While that is the case in the UK (1 / 2), you should check your local laws to see what being forced to penetrate would be considered.
Resources:
RAINN / 1in6 / ManKind Initiative / SurvivorsUK / MaleSurvivor / Safeline
In reference to that last slide, see County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996):
Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities. A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support. [...] The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones's criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period. In an action to impose vicarious liability upon a minor's parents, Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1045 [279 Cal. Rptr. 94], held a minor's consent to unlawful sexual intercourse was "a permissible consideration" in denying liability. "[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly participated in the offense about which a complaint is made." (Id., at pp. 1046-1047.) One who is injured as a result of criminal conduct in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. (Id., at p. 1047, fn. 13.) It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse[*]. (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 245, 261 [226 Cal. Rptr. 361].)
And, in this article about the case:
Clearly, said Roth, if a teenage boy got a teenage girl pregnant, no one would question the state for holding him responsible. She said the teenager's testimony made it clear he had known what he was doing and agreed to it. "I guess he thought he was a man then," she said. "Now, he prefers to be considered a child." [...] Until 1994, the state's statutory-rape law didn't even apply to boys; only adults who had sex with young girls could be prosecuted. The legislature changed the law two years ago, but prosecutions of women are rare, Mason said.
* btw, they have also ruled that the victim of statuotry rape is required to pay child support when the victim was a 12-13 year old. The argument here is "the conceived child is a victim, too, and since you wanted someone far older than you to sleep with you, you aren't totally a victim." In my opinion, the state should pay the child support and not make the victim responsible for being fucking groomed by someone who had the responsibility to say no.
This is patriarchy btw. Just in case anyone reading this needs a reminder of the root problem here. The motivating factor beneath this is that being forced to penetrate, specifically by someone with a vagina perceived as a woman, is inherently less traumatizing. People perceived as young boys can't be groomed- they wanted it, and the woman? Well, she basically had nothing to do with it. The man is always the pursuer and the woman is always the object being pursued- a woman couldn't groom a young boy in the same way a man could groom a young girl, because men are horny predators while women are romantic prey. Misogyny & toxic masculinity lead people to view victims of being forced-penetrate as whiny & irresponsible, complaining about nothing- sure, the entire reason statutory rape laws exist are to protect children from being taken advantage of, but when its a boy, well... he was a horny teen (which girls can never be- they can only feel fluffy romantic emotions, teen girls never just wanna get off), and boys don't get traumatized by sex with girls.
Boys are only "boys" or "innocent" when it benefits the patriarchy (for example, the infantilization of violent white men, where it serves to protect white supremacist patriarchy from criticism). When it doesn't- when someone perceived as a man failing to Be A Man, or when its a marginalized man who needs to be "put in his place," then men are incapable of victimhood or innocence.
>This is patriarchy btw
How, exactly?
According to common feminist claims, The Patriarchy is about men having most societal power, which they will inevatably use to privilege and benefit men and boys over women and girls. On social and legal levels.
Feminists have specifically argued that when society ignores or rewards female victims that accuse male rapists and sexual assailants, it's male privilege and sexism against women, and part of the Patriarchy.
This case seems like the exact opposite.
> The motivating factor beneath this is that being forced to penetrate, specifically by someone with a vagina perceived as a woman, is inherently less traumatizing. People perceived as young boys can't be groomed- they wanted it, and the woman? Well, she basically had nothing to do with it.
I really think it's because society says "it's not really rape when a woman does it it, or a man/boy is the victim. Or both." Whether the victim is forced to penetrate or not.
Note that the "mother" in this case was already convicted, yet she still won child support. I find it odd that you didn't mention that part.
Even when the law and System explicitly says "what this woman did to this child was wrong", it will still turn around and try to get CS from her victim.
You seem to be viewing this through a lens of "women are the real victims", even when they have clear privileges.
You never actually use the term "sexism" or "misandry". Why is that? Why do you use "misogyny", but only "toxic masculinity" for men, which implies it's all or mostly men's fault?
Oh boy! The exact person I made this addition to ward off!
Well, first of all, I am a transfeminist. I would define the patriarchy as a social system* which exists to control gender/sex relations, for the benefit of cisgender, heterosexual men– although it can’t be understood without the context of other social systems (like white supremacy and capitalism). These systems work together as the kyriarchy to preserve the power and wealth of a few at the cost of the many. On my blog, I’ve written extensively how I believe men are negatively impacted by the patriarchy on a deep and intrinsic level, and that I believe that the patriarchy cannot be properly unworked unless we acknowledge this aspect. “Common feminist claims” do not mean every feminist makes those claims as you understand them.
Yes, I would say in general woman perpetrators are not seen as “real” perpetrators, and men/boys are not seen as “real” victims. I focused on penetration because I feel its fundamental to why being forced-to-penetrate is especially ignored, despite it being the most common form of rape experienced by cis men. Men/boys being sodomized is more easily seen as an act of violation– even if it frequently mocked and seen as demeaning– because being penetrated is seen as inherently dominating. Its easier to convince people, especially feminist-minded people, that a boy who was sodomized is a victim than it is to convince them a boy who was forced to penetrate is. Penetration is seen as being something which always takes, even if being “taken from” is seen as demeaning. And this is entirely because penetration is inherently gendered in the patriarchal view: to penetrate is to be male (& the patriarchy views the only “true” men, deserving of value, as those who perform dominant manhood effectively) and to be penetrated is to be female. So forced-to-penetrate rape is the form of sexual assault to men most easily written off because it flies in the face of how the patriarchy views sexual power dynamics.
I don’t see what me not mentioning her being convicted has to do with anything? I clearly find this woman disgusting and think its horrific that she was able to force her victim to pay child support when she groomed him. We agree entirely on this point. There's no point to bringing this up except that you want me to be supporting this woman when clearly am not. You assume I think “women are the real victims” because you are opposed to any analysis of gender that points to the patriarchy instead of women. In that way, you are actually very similar to the feminists who call me and MRA for saying that the patriarchy should not be synonymous with “men,” especially individual men.
I later elaborated in this post:
In the case of a man being seen as a victim of being forced-to-penetrate, its more beneficial to paint the woman as an object for the pursuing young boy, and then paint any arguments that he is a victim as being unreasonable and irresponsible. In this case, the woman is objectified but in a way that benefits her because it benefits the patriarchy first and foremost. Similarly, the patriarchy only cares about cis male victims when it is beneficial to itself (as a part of kyriarchy which is fundamentally concerned w material power/wealth and control to maintain that power/wealth), and that "care" is extremely superficial.
I very, very frequently talk about the view of women as perpetual victims is
the way that privileged women (specifically white & cis but in this case, also woman predators) are able to get away with violence, and
that this is the result of misogyny. Women are perpetual victims because they are seen as property, something that exists only to be protected, like sheep. White women have power via victimhood because the white-patriarchy needs them to produce white children, which is why Black women don't have access to that victimhood. (Additionally, the idea that women don't want sex/aren't as horny/invested in sex as men is why more focus is put on a young boy's "choice" in being groomed than the grown woman's choice to groom him. That's also misogyny).
I think the way we use “privilege” has a lot of flaws, perhaps the biggest being that it’s extremely vague and is applied to a lot of different situations. You could apply “privilege” to what happened with this woman, but I think its far better to call it benevolent misogyny (which avoids implying that “female privilege” as a mirror for “male privilege” is a thing– and, for the record, I have a lot of issues with how “male privilege” is used by cisfeminism, and I don’t think “female privilege” as a term would cause anything but problems). On a very individual level, she was privileged here, but not because The System Loves Women And Hates Men. It’s because of misogyny, which comes from the patriarchy.
I actually do use “misandry” to describe this situation– also “antimasculism.” I think either one of these words is useful when discussing how the patriarchy negatively affects men & those perceived as men. I would love to be able to say “this is the result of misandry” and have people understand that I mean “this is the result of patriarchal gender roles & how they affect men.” But because of people like you, using that word immediately makes people go on defense mode and assume I am blaming women for the workings of the patriarchy, so I have to use imperfect phrases like “toxic masculinity” to try and get my message out there. Thanks a lot.
TL;DR: we fundamentally agree that what happened in this case is bad and that the woman got away with it because of gender dyanmics. But you have piss-poor interpretation of those dynamics, and would rather ignore the way cis men can benefit from the patriarchy so you can blame women. You essentially take the shittiest of feminist perspectives– the surface level, pop-feminist “patriarchy is when people don’t like women and like men” that I have major issues with– and swap it around and act like you’ve done something. All you do is make it 10000x harder for us to properly deal with misandry, because you make it all about “women get favored in child custody cases!!” (which, btw, is also a product of misogyny) instead of how the patriarchy wants men to suffer. The only solution to all this gender suffering is cis men, cis women, trans people, and everyone outside or in-between working together, combined anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-oppressive action. You can't get there unless you stop blaming women and start blaming the patriarchy (neither can feminists get there unless they do the same with men!)
*To elaborate on that explanation: when I say the patriarchy is a "social system," I mean it is a widespread set of cultural ideas (in this case, about gender and sex) that have a great amount of sway over people's thoughts and actions, which leads to it deeply affecting every part of society. It exists beyond any one person or group of people.
Reblogging again for International Men's Day
this might be the oldest jpeg I can remember. had this bad boy saved to my computer when I was like 10
Well, time to call the expert
@my-hobby-is-finding-the-source
Postcard: “Christ died for our Dunkin’ Donuts,” 1994, Folder 29, Box 1, William Rosenberg Papers, 1940-2002, MC 187, Milne Special Collections and Archives, University of New Hampshire Library, Durham, NH, USA.
Rough day of being cute
I feel like in the rush of “throw out etiquette who cares what fork you use or who gets introduced first” we actually lost a lot of social scripts that the younger generations are floundering without.
A lot of tough situations where we now feel like we “don’t know what to do or say” had social scripts just a couple of generations ago and they might have been canned phrases or robotic actions but they could still be meant sincerely and unfortunately we haven’t replaced them with any more sincere or easier new script.
a lot of people are giving examples in the notes of things they just find annoying like not using headphones in public, but OP is talking about actual literal scripts of things to say in awkward situations
if you have a date or two with someone and you don't see a relationship developing? most millennials / gen Zers just end up ghosting. but a social script that might have been taught and rehearsed in the past could be:
"I really appreciated getting dinner with you the other night and I enjoyed your company, but I'm afraid I didn't feel a spark. I wish you the best, and hope you find that special someone!"
like it sounds kind of trite but it was at least something to say and it can still be meant with kind sincerity. it also communicates in 2 sentences that you don't want to see them romantically again, but there aren't any hard feelings about that. that's it!!! that's all it takes!!!
Another example is that at parties a lot of people talk about how awkward it is to mingle or talk to people they dont know. But at old timey parties that was traditionally the HOST'S job, and there was a specific scripted way of doing it that eased the process! The host would bring you in, introduce you and maybe even a little bit about you like what you did for a living, and then guide you to a group you could talk to. They didn't just let you in the door and then ditch you to fend for yourself in a sea of strangers. That would be unthinkable and no one would be surprised if a get-together like that wound up being awkward.
A really good host would actually provide a topic of conversation based on things you and the person they were introducing you to had in common.
At networking events I've gone to, where there's no host who knows everybody, good networkers pick up the slack. They go around the room once making just enough small talk to learn some useful info about a good portion of of the people in the room, and then circle back around and go, "Oh hey I was just talking to X over there and he's looking for someone who does Y for his next project; you should go talk to him." You can do something similar at parties, referring people to other people you made smalltalk with you have the same hobbies or like the same kind of movies.
To take a few steps back up the thread to the part about turning down future dates, the same goes for turning down shitty job offers.
"[Thank you for your interest]/[Thank you for thinking of me for this role], however I'm afraid [I have prior commitments]/[I'm not a good fit] at this time. I wish you the best of luck [finding the right fit for your company]/[with your startup endeavor]"
Delete or substitute more relevant lines as appropriate, but it's a polite way of saying "no" without feeling like you need to overexplain.
Increasingly, people -- millennials and younger, rarely anyone older -- will not get the hint about this and get pushy, fishing for extra information to let them work around the Polite No, which in previous generations would have been incredibly rude. It's still incredibly rude, at which point the polite response is, "Thank you, but I gave you my final answer. Best of luck!" no matter how many times they come back. Become a broken record until they go away.
okay so that’s at least one person who would have no problem if they got sent back to medieval times, the guild hall absolutely going off to this mashup
@honey-wine-and-time
Husband: That tune is really familiar.
Me: It’s the Pirates of the Caribbean theme.
Him: Ah.
Me: Mashed with Carol of the Bells. On a harp.
Him: *stares*
Me: Everything is on the internet somewhere.