Harvested Yams @happilysweetmentality - Tumblr Blog

1715km-deactivated20240725

Andre 3K.

The Will To Change by Bell Hooks fucked me up good

Actually most of words we use for sex are violent, not just fuck. My Marriage and Family professor pointed this out during my freshmen year of college and it’s stayed with me. Think about it…. bang, screw, hit it, pound, smash, rail, plow, pound, like our entire culture has tried to remove the concept of intimacy and vulnerability and emotion from sex by associating violent words with the action. The power of language on culture, perspective, and overall mindset is so incredible. We gotta be more careful and respectful of that.

tchrgleek

Interestingly enough, the one term I can think of that isn’t violent, make love, is ridiculed in pop culture instead of used to create intimacy when talking about sex. I never considered that before. This whole post is food for thought.

coffeegleek

Reblogging again for ^^this comment. I’d been thinking the same thing. You can say you had sex or fucked or banged but if you say you “made love” then you’re mocked as a naive, overly-romantic, teenage girl virgin or some other sexist bullshit.

I wonder what euphemisms are in other languages. I only know a few, but not well enough to write about them.

thebuttholequeen

You're ok with abortion?

Only when it’s completely necessary, like when a woman is pregnant and doesn’t want to be anymore.

i3ya

av3n

juniebjawn

I was looking for this video 😭

iddek

Pay attention, 2014 Mad Men: This little girl is holding a LEGO set. The LEGOs are not pink or “made for girls.” She isn’t even wearing pink. The copy is about “younger children” who “build for fun.” Not just “girls” who build. ALL KIDS.

In an age when little girls and boys are treated as though they are two entirely different species by toy marketers, this 1981 ad for LEGO — one of our favorite images ever — issues an important reminder.

gnder101-blog

This is my favorite advertisement. Also, a short story about sexist parenting with LEGOS. I work at a toy store that sells thousands of dollars of legos and I’ve seen time and time again parents refusing to buy blue box legos for girls and refusing to buy pink box legos for boys even when they ask for them. One girl came in with her parents and she wanted LEGO CITY because it was her birthday and they wanted to buy her gift with her at the store. [LEGO CITY is a LEGO series that lets a child build train stations, firetrucks, passenger ships, space exploration vehicles, drawbridges, garbage disposal trucks, basically anything related to the running of a city and it is not a gender based toy.] I showed them the LEGO CITY, but the mom told the child over and over “No, this is for boys you can’t get that” and eventually, she made the little girl choose a LEGO Disney Cinderella Castle instead because it was “more appropriate”. Even after I pointed out that every box has female and male LEGO people because the toy is meant for both boys and girls, she refused because it looked like a “boy” toy. I’ve had many occasions where a girl will be drawn to the LEGO CITY series only for the parents to come to me and ask “Where are the GIRLS Legos, you know, princesses and stuff. I’m not buying her this sort of thing” and it makes me so, so, so, so, sad every time because I can already imagine the types of values in education and career choices the parents will be scolding child for wanting in the future when they aren’t even allowed to play with anything blue. Let girls be kids without all the forced gender stereotyping, dammit.

benyw

You know what little girls could grow up to be? Architects, engineers, builders.

You know what little girls cannot ever be, no matter what they do in life? A princess.

We sell real life careers to little boys, but to girls we sell lies and fantasy. Then we have the gall to say that girls ‘choose’ careers that earn them less, that girls just aren’t interested in STEM fields, that girls are stupid for pursuing frivolous nonsense, etc. etc.

This is gender in action. Not nature, but socialization.

cliteralviolence

That last comment especially 👏🏻👏🏻

milessperhourr

As a female architect I approve this message.

ahallister

I loved LEGO when I was little, and it was an activity I enjoyed with both my sister and my two brothers. It galls me how the brand was marketed so heavily to boys in the 80s and 90s, because now those kids are adults and remember it as ‘something for boys’ and keep it away from their girls. Marketing can do damage for *generations*, not just in the immediate short term.

quousque

GENDER IN ACTION what a great fucking way of putting it

azriona

I was just thinking about this post/ad the other day. I’ve reblogged it before, and there’s a version that links to an interview with the little girl in the picture about her memories of the photo shoot. It’s all very girl-positive and how gendering toys is terrible, and for the most part, I agree. There’s no such thing as boys’ toys and girls’ toys. Or there shouldn’t be.

The thing that occurred to me about this ad, though - it’s not really breaking any gender barriers. The little girl in the picture? She’s dressed like a boy. She’s not wearing pink. Her hair’s not in ringlets. She hasn’t built what could obviously be called a princess castle. If you looked fast, you’d probably think she was a boy (until you noticed the braids).

So yeah, maybe this ad is saying, “Hey, girls can play with Lego too!” Except, not really. Because what it’s actually saying is, “Hey, girls who are actually tomboys can play with Lego too!”

I’m just saying - I think it would have been way more powerful if you’d had a girl in pink and ruffles and ringlets building space ships and skyscrapers and King Arthur’s castle. That it’s possible to be both girly - and want to do those things. This ad? Ain’t showing that.

ghostrepeater

Okay, so the thing i’m having a problem with here is that this little girl is NOT dressed like a boy, she’s dressed like a little girl at play in 1981.

Girls’ clothes in 1981 were not limited to various shades of pink and purple but ran the full spectrum of colors. They were also expected to stand up to the wear and tear of regular play (which in 1981 meant running around outdoors). Ruffles and the like existed but those clothes were fancy, meant for occasions or events like church and holidays, not everyday wear.

For example, here is a photo of my brother and i in 1983 wearing our everyday clothes

I am five years old here. At this time, my room was painted pink, i had what i called my princess dress, and my Barbie was the one that came with an all-pink wardrobe. At that time in my life i was absolutely NOT considered a tomboy; i was a typical little girl.

To your modern eyes, inundated with the sharply gendered clothing of today, the girl in the ad didn’t even read as a girl whereas in 1981, she did. And i’m wondering who is in the more constrictive box, girls then or girls now?

Also i saw these from the same campaign and they are adorable!

puttingherinhistory

How terrible is it to know that as a society we’ve probably gotten worse with pushing gender norms on kids instead of better.

When I was in uni in one of my soc classes we read an excerpt from The Beauty Myth which talked about this, how when women started gaining more political/social/financial power in society the patriarchal started lashing back by buckling down on beauty standards and enforcing femininity. Beauty standards and the expectation for girls and women to be feminine has definitely gotten worse the past few decades as direct retaliation against women and girls for gaining more power, it’s a way to keep women and girls in “their place” in one way while they’re reaching for progress in other areas. If you’re interested in learning more about this phenomenon, I suggest giving The Beauty Myth a read