happy one year anniversary to this post getting marked as "potentially mature content" and then never leaving content review when i appealed. tumblr's own default loading graphic is considered by their own tos "potentially sexual" it seems.
@support you got any explanations for how this post got flagged? or why it never got reviewed? or what mature content might potentially be happening? believe me i am ALL ears
Division of labor in the home is one of the most important equity issues of our time. Yet at this rate it will be another 75 years before men do half the work.
The optimistic tale of the modern, involved dad has been greatly exaggerated. The amount of child care men performed rose throughout the 1980s and ’90s, but then began to level off without ever reaching parity. Mothers still shoulder 65 percent of child-care work. In academic journals, family researchers caution that the “culture of fatherhood” has changed more than fathers’ actual behavior.
Sociologists attribute the discrepancy between mothers’ expectations and reality to “a largely successful male resistance.” This resistance is not being led by socially conservative men, whose like-minded wives often explicitly agree to take the lead in the home. It is happening, instead, with relatively progressive couples, and it takes many women — who thought their partners had made a prenatal commitment to equal parenting — by surprise. Why are their partners failing to pitch in more?
The answer lies, in part, in the different ways that men and women typically experience unfairness. Inequality makes everyone feel bad. Studies have found that people who feel they’re getting away with something experience fear and self-reproach, while people who feel exploited are angry and resentful. And yet men are more comfortable than women with the first scenario and less tolerant than women of finding themselves with the short end of the stick. Parity is hard, and this discrepancy lays the groundwork for male resistance.
Though many men are in denial about it, their resistance communicates a feeling of entitlement to women’s labor. Men resist because it is in their “interest to do so,” write Scott Coltrane and Michele Adams, leaders in the field of family studies, in their book, “Gender and Families.” By passively refusing to take an equal role, men are reinforcing “a separation of spheres that underpins masculine ideals and perpetuates a gender order privileging men over women.”
While interviewing working parents for a book on parenthood, I spoke with one dad in Vermont who said: “The expectation among my male friends is still that they will have the life they had before having kids. My dad has never cooked a meal. I’ve strayed from that. But subconsciously, the thing that makes you motivationally step up and do something when you’re not being asked …” he trailed off, and then said: “I have justifications. It’s a cop-out.”
Take love out of the equation and focus on the workplace, and it’s clear how this plays out. Studies show that male employees sit back while their female co-workers perform the tasks that don’t lead to promotion. In a series of lab studies, the economists Lise Vesterlund, Linda Babcock and Maria Recalde and the organizational behaviorist Laurie Weingart found that in coed groups, women are 50 percent more likely than men to volunteer to take on work that no one else wants to do. But in all-male groups, the men volunteer just as readily.
In an interview with NPR, Dr. Vesterlund explained that the women do the work “because they’re expected to.” The men “come into the room, they see the women, they know how we play these games.”
We play the same games at home. I interviewed couples separately and found that the women were often angry, while many men didn’t seem to realize there was a problem.
The couples offered three explanations for this labor imbalance. The first was that women take over activities like bedtime, homework and laundry because men perform these tasks inadequately. But this isn’t “maternal gatekeeping,” the theory that men want to help but women disparage their capabilities and push them out. Instead these seem to be situations that necessitate the intervention of a reasonable adult.
A mother in California said: “It’s important to me that my sons are not falling asleep in class and that they’re not late for school. My husband does not share those priorities, so I do bedtime and school drop-off.”
The dad in Vermont explained: “I do laundry when I need it. When it comes to the kids’ laundry, I could be more proactive, but instead I operate on my time scale. So my wife does most of their laundry. Let me do it my way and I’m happy to do it, but if you’re going to tell me how to do it, go ahead and do it yourself.”
The second explanation involved forgetting or obliviousness. A mother in Illinois said: “My husband is a participatory and willing partner. He’s not traditional in terms of ‘I don’t change diapers.’ But his attention is limited.” She added, “I can’t trust him to do anything, to actually remember.”
A dad in San Francisco said that many of the tasks of parenting weren’t important enough to remember: “I just don’t think these things are worth attending to. A certain percentage of parental involvement that my wife does, I would see as valuable but unnecessary. A lot of disparity in our participation is that.”
Finally, some men blamed their wives’ personalities. A San Diego dad said his wife did more because she was so uptight. “She wakes up on a Saturday morning and has a list. I don’t keep lists. I think there’s a belief that if she’s not going to do it, then it won’t get done.” (His wife agreed that this was true, but emphasized that her belief was based on experience: “We fell into this easy pattern where he learned to be oblivious and I learned to resent him.”)
A father in Portland, Ore., confirmed that his wife takes on more but said: “It has to do with her personality. She always has to stay busy. No matter what day of the week it is, she has a need to be engaged, to be doing something.”
Many mothers told me they had tried to change this and had aired their grievances with their partners, only to watch as nothing changed. A mother in Queens said she spent three years trying to get her husband to do more before coming to terms with the fact that maybe it was never going to happen. “He notices the unfairness, but he just accepts it as something we have a disagreement about,” she said. “How much convincing of the other person can you do?”
All this comes at a cost to women’s well-being, as mothers forgo leisure time, professional ambitions and sleep. Wives who view their household responsibilities “as unjust are more likely to suffer from depression than those who do not,” one study says. When their children are young, employed women (but not men) take a hit to their health as well as to their earnings — and the latter never recovers. Child-care imbalances also tank relationship happiness, especially in the early years of parenthood.
Division of labor in the home is one of the most important gender-equity issues of our time. Yet at the current rate of change, MenCare, a group that promotes equal involvement in caregiving, estimates that it will be about 75 more years before men worldwide assume half of the unpaid work that domesticity requires.
If anything is going to change, men have to stop resisting. Gendered parenting is kept alive by the unacknowledged power bestowed upon men in a world that values their needs, comforts and desires more than women’s. It’s up to fathers to cop to this, rather than to cop out.
every single conversation abt ip on here devolves into a bunch of people being really anxious that someone is going to take away their hypothetical income from them for their creativity and like, that is already happening. that is literally happening. how do you think publishers like penguin, harper collins, macmillan et al got big and stay big? how do you think publishers like elsevier et al maintain such a stranglehold and charge such amounts? do you even know how individual IP rights operate these days, especially when you're licensing them to a company? have you read a contract ever in your life? have you had to work on preparing a contract ever in your life? do you think your much vaunted, precious authors have the rights to reprint their books whenever if they realise their publishers are fucking them over? don't make me fucking laugh. at the very least please pull your heads out of your asses and read helen dewitt's extensive chronicling of her run-ins with the publishing industry as is. god knows you can pick up the biography or collected/published letters of almost any author* across time and encounter a section with their run-ins and struggles with their publishers, either because they're not being given enough royalties, or because they're writing to contract and need to give their publishers a book by a specific deadline, or a specific kind of book, even when circumstances & health issues are conspiring against them. do you think copyright gives them any control over their lives, or any sort of creative control? don't be so naive - and nevermind the fact that it is basically impossible to have a career in writing these days and that the rare few who do are writing extremely formulaic genre fiction written to, again, insane deadlines that are punishing for any sort of creative work. stop being naive!!!! take an actual look and reckon at what the actual circumstances and conditions are for producing art! it is not good! copyright is not going to save you! it is panacea at best! you will literally do better campaigning for universal basic income over championing the cause of copyright!
*off the top of my head just based on the biographies & other primary sources i've read: agatha christie, aldous huxley, jrr tolkien, georgette heyer
mind you, this is only in publishing/writing. the conditions are not that much better in other domains. music? most artists are being fucked over by their record companies cutting deals with spotify that leave them getting very little revenue while not actually owning their own masters. visual arts? a handful of artists will break through each year and it depends heavily on your ability to network and attend extremely expensive art events, from what i know of. but maybe you can get lucky working in highly exploitative conditions in a well-known artist's studio where you produce works that are sold under their name :) can't say i know much about television or film, but my impression is that its not that much better (perhaps the greatest evidence in favour of this is the way the number of working working class actors in the uk has nearly dropped completely off and nearly all of them are privately educated in one way or the other). so genuinely who do you think the so called ip law is protecting right now? bc right now from where i'm sitting, it is protecting literally those with the greatest amount of money and purchasing power, on both sides of the cultural production and cultural distribution divides. which as you might imagine is anathema to any kind of genuine creative culture.
sometimes people experiencing psychosis and/or mania will come up to you on the street and talk in confusing or upsetting ways. your job is to either have a regular human-to-human conversation with that person or politely leave. your job is not to call 911. do not call 911. you might kill that person if you call 911.
I don't even have the energy to screenshot and respond to your tags- what the actual fuck is wrong with you? "the cops are scared and rightfully so" "mental health calls are the scariest for cops" OH so this isn't about the safety of psychotic & manic people this is about piggy feelings?
and no, actually, this is not USA specific and no, actually, people from other countries should not ignore this post. police violence and sanism weren't invented in the US and they are certainly not unique to here. if you (or anyone) thinks that this bullshit doesn't happen elsewhere then you are not listening.
This is legitimately useful reframing. A while ago I started replacing the word "cop" in my vocabulary with "a man with a gun." It really puts things into perspective.
This homeless person is making me uncomfortable. Should I call [a man with a gun]?
My neighbor is having a loud party. Should I get [a man with a gun] involved?
There are some teenagers skateboarding. Do you think [a man with a gun] would get rid of them for me?
It makes it very clear what you're saying. I can call a man with a gun to threaten or hurt someone mildly inconveniencing me. You're not calling the cops, you're calling A MAN WITH A GUN into a situation that does not warrant a firearm handled by a volatile lunatic who will not be held accountable for his actions.
Several conservative states will require proof from people who say they're too sick to work.
By Alice Miranda Ollstein and Robert King
08/09/2026 10:00 AM EDT
Democrats say the Trump administration’s new Medicaid work requirements — especially the narrow definition of who can get an exemption for medical reasons — are way too harsh.
Conservatives contend they’re not tough enough, and have convinced some Republican-led states to be even stricter.
The federal government gave states the option of allowing people to stay on Medicaid through 2027 if they declare themselves too sick to work, with verification starting in 2028. But at least eight states are rejecting that grace period and demanding proof earlier. Starting in January, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah will impose work rules stricter than those the administration is requiring.
Their decision underscores many conservatives’ belief that the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare covered too many people that they consider unworthy of support, such as non-disabled, working-age adults without children. Democrats and advocates for low-income people say the harsher enforcement will cause many more sick people to join the ranks of the uninsured faster, putting the burden of caring for them on already-strained emergency rooms and public health clinics.
The policies adopted by the eight GOP-leaning states are the culmination of a massive lobbying campaign by conservative organizations who view the administration’s decision to forgo verification of medical frailty next year as a “loophole” that people will exploit to get out of working.
like I mean this very seriously as writing advice. the character should experience events and make decisions that make them different at the end of the story. they should be changed. they do not have to be improved.
they can get worse. they can make decisions of an increasingly terrible nature. they can stop taking risks on kindness. they can discover how much they can get away with. they can find religion, or abandon it, with negative effects on their moral creed. the character has to develop. the character does not have to grow.
a loooooot a lot a lot a lot of "free food resources for poor people" are literally just scams. some of them are not scams on purpose but have the ultimate end result of wasting the time and energy of poor people and then end up being an app that shows you google map results for "food bank" after they take your user data. a lot of the food or financial resources lists that circulate on tumblr are just lists of these scam/timewasting destinations put together by people who genuinely and sincerely want to help, have googled up a bunch of results and compiled them, but of course have not personally spent the ten hours it would take to test and see if any of them actually function as advertised.
sometimes the resource in question functions well in one city but has zero to offer anyone in any other location, for whatever reason, and very very often, when you DO find a real organization or lead or opportunity, they will have incredibly limited hours of operation, are not taking new clients and wont tell you when they are taking new clients, and/or have other means-testing that is simply infeasible to complete. i think on average i have to spend 1-10 hours on this timewasting shit to find one good lead for any sort of actual material result, and i am living in a DEEP blue liberal democrat metropolitan area.
we should all keep this in mind when we see fundraising posts on this website for people who are asking for food, medicine, or transportation money. the kneejerk response is to wonder why they simply havent gone to the foodbank. well, as a regular foodbank-goer who lives within walking distance of a food bank, let me tell you. it takes days to recover from a single trip there, and days to prepare for the next trip, due to all of the above. they only let you go once per week, so you have to carry as much as you possibly can back home, and you arent allowed to make multiple trips, and they wont let you take enough of anything other than dry beans to last more than a week anyway. so you cant make multiple trips per week, but you also cant stock up adequately to avoid running out of stuff like dairy and fruit in a couple days. if i was SLIGHTLY more disabled, or had kids, or had a normal job with normal job hours, it would be entirely impossible to go at all.
i could just lie to them and go multiple times a week anyway, and this would qualify as "welfare fraud". when you see accusations of "welfare fraud", keep this in mind also.
if you personally want to post a list of these resources, it behooves you to note for each one in you list whether you have personally used the resource or not, WHEN you did so, WHAT the result was, and WHERE you are located. if you cant vouch for it, go ahead and post the lead anyway, but say so. try to help people triage their list of leads
EDIT: someone points out they dont even let you GO TO A FOOD BANK in the uk without a fucking referral. it's unbelievable. it really is possible to starve in Britain and the United States while the grocery store down the block dumps day-old food into a dumpster and soaks it all in bleach. they do it every single day
Maybe one reason time seems to speed up in adult life is because when your full time job leaves you roughly 5 hours of free time a day plus two days off a week your life turns into a sort of monotony that makes the days blend together and creative pursuits move in slow motion as you can only get to them when other your commitments are done.
The anti-vax and anti-science propaganda is very real - and also, frankly I think doctors and nurses would've had an easier time getting people not to fall for it if they spent less time treating people like fucking shit
The move sets the stage for more corporate consolidation in the media industry.
The Federal Communications Commission, the government agency that regulates the broadcast airwaves, voted Thursday to eliminate a cap on the share of U.S. television households a single company can reach, a major move that could pave the way for more corporate consolidation in the media industry.
In a 2-1 vote, the FCC repealed a 22-year-old rule holding that a company cannot own stations that reach more than a combined 39% of the U.S. television audience. The ownership limit will be replaced by a case-by-case approach.
...
The 39% cap has been in place since 2004, when Congress boosted a previous 35% limit set in the 1990s. The rule remained unaltered for more than two decades partly because it is codified in federal law.
Carr has contended that the FCC nonetheless has statutory authority to scrap the rule — a position that is likely to face legal pushback. Free Press, a progressive consumer group, said it planned to sue over the FCC’s “unlawful power grab.”
Anna M. Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner on the FCC, blasted the vote in similar terms, calling it “unlawful on its face.” [...]
Science fiction has always been political. Gibson’s Neuromancer was a warning about corporate power, not a pitch deck. Stephenson’s Snow Crash was satire, not strategy. Asimov’s Foundation explored the limits of individual genius and the necessity of democratic institutions. Star Trek imagined overcoming capitalism, not retrofitting it with better spaceships.
If the future is to be made from stories, our task is ensuring those stories are worthy of the people who will live within them. That means recognising the selective deployment of science fiction as a political tactic – seeing the militarised drone and the privatised city charter not as neutral tools but as crystallisations of specific, narrow stories about power. It means demanding accountability not to curated fantasies of a literary past but to the pluralistic needs of the present. It means asking: whose futures are being built? Who benefits? Who pays the cost? What was left behind in the looting?
I’m not going to stop sharing info about Mark Pittman, the judge who denied the Prairieland anti ICE protesters the right to a fair trial and railroaded a trans woman into a 50 year sentence in men’s prison
