one of the tweets of all time to me
mustard snob canon

No title available

Discoholic 🪩

@theartofmadeline
𓃗
Misplaced Lens Cap
Stranger Things

tannertan36
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

oozey mess

blake kathryn
official daine visual archive
art blog(derogatory)
Sweet Seals For You, Always
No title available

Love Begins
d e v o n
Game of Thrones Daily
will byers stan first human second
noise dept.

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Colombia
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from Guatemala

seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Czechia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@bushconnoisseur
one of the tweets of all time to me
mustard snob canon
The only way forward is to stop treating masculinity as synonymous with harmful, monstrous, or dangerous.
There is a fundamental difference between "men are dangerous" (wrong, bioessentialist) and "the patriarchy allows dangerous men to exist unchecked" (true).
the thing is that the claim "men are dangerous" is only "bioessentialist" if we also claim that the category of "man" is biologically determined, i.e. that there is some quality of the physical body ("bio") that contains within it the quality ("essence") of man-ness.
if we define the idea of "man" in a way that instead references anything else (as a class defined by a particular relationship to the performance of reproductive labour under capitalism, as a group of colonial ideas that create a certain role within a gender binary, as one possibility for self-identification, literally anything else other than the 'biological' body) then it is not bioessentialist, just because of the definition of what "bioessentialist" means.
the claim "the patriarchy allows dangerous men to exist unchecked" entails the idea that "the category of 'man' exists prior to the existence of patriarchy"—that is, "man" and "woman" are "real" things, "real" preëxisting categories, and then patriarchy afterwards comes along and unethically privileges one over the other. but this—the idea that "man" has a real definition that exists prior to the colonial gender binary / cisheteropatriarchy, rather than being a category or a set of ideals and ideas that was created by the same—is actually the essentialist idea here.
it might not be bioessentialist—you could, for example, claim that the "essence" that creates "man"-ness is spiritual or within the mind, rather than being a quality of the body—but it is definitely and unavoidably essentialist.
the claim that "the category of 'man' is a dangerous one to be begin with" could be essentialist (again, if we make the transphobic claim that a "man" is "a person who possesses a certain kind of body"), but it is the only claim of these two that has the potential to be anything else (i.e., if we define "man" as a particular role created by patriarchy).
effectively, you've got what is and is not essentialist exactly backwards.
Daydream
girl it’s just a 3 day trip, you do not need to bring your terracotta warriors 🙄
Puppy sleeping. 1955, Japan
well im not the moon im not even a star
FUCKKKKKKK what if something bad happened and I forgot to worry about it
Im not a go getter, im a girl getter
Maybe if I just work harder, this empty cup will pour again
Maybe the cup needs a bit of time to rest and refill?
Maybe the cup needs to lock the fuck in???
i wish cleaning the dishes was more fun. specially the bottles
angel playing the lute
mole's thought
"Awkward" maned wolf photographed by Gabriel Bonfa, Brazil