never shouldve smoked that shit, now i’m on the july 17th 1995 cover of newsweek
Happy 30th birthday bisexuality
Anything That Moves 1996 issue #10 cover
Cosmic Funnies
No title available

PR's Tumblrdome
Stranger Things
tumblr dot com

Andulka
Fai_Ryy
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Product Placement

No title available
wallacepolsom
$LAYYYTER
Jules of Nature
The Bowery Presents
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

oozey mess

Origami Around
we're not kids anymore.

titsay
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Austria
seen from Bangladesh

seen from United Kingdom
@shyocean
never shouldve smoked that shit, now i’m on the july 17th 1995 cover of newsweek
Happy 30th birthday bisexuality
Anything That Moves 1996 issue #10 cover
Sometimes you get a brief glimpse into the American worldview and decide that you don't want to know.
I cannot stress enough that this meme is entirely literal. there's no reference or subtext you don't know. these are simply the objectively most popular works of art from each denomination.
I didn’t see the og image poster so I thought it was some sad Redditor and not the fucking department of war. Also it is insane that a department of war exists. Your job is to start or manage wars?
No, actually. Hegseth just wants war real bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347
Executive Order 14347, titled Restoring the United States Department of War, is an executive order signed by Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States, on September 5, 2025.[1] Among U.S. federal agencies, the order authorized the use of the secondary title "Department of War" for the United States Department of Defense in non-statutory communications. The Defense Department now refers to itself as the "Department of War" in public and on its website, but is still technically named the Department of Defense, as only an act of Congress can formally change the name of a federal department.
Because sometimes we all just need to see a guy head-bump a beautiful Beluga whale
Note: that is not a lumberjack!!! Most likely it is a domesticated marine biologist, possibly a domesticated fisherman, (you can tell because it has been clothed in wool, which stays warm when wet, so it is is clearly well cared for).
While this may be appropriate enrichment for your DOMESTICATED and WELL TRAINED marine biologist or fisherman, please remember that lumberjacks may be tame, but are not domesticated. They are still wild, and they absolutely will freak out if they see you swimming around in their forests.
did you write this notice for the belugas or
Who else would I write it for? It’s not like orcas care about ethical wildlife photography.
Necromancer that doesn’t know they’re a necromancer and thinks they’re just a really good emt
That is the funniest thing i have ever read
the thing was, she wasn’t going to be able to pass the recertification exam, and she couldn’t figure out why. annabelle studied. she practiced. she pulled out every trick and shortcut she’d learned during her two years as an EMT and none of it worked. she just – she didn’t get it. it made no sense.
“wake up,” she urged the dummy, pressing her hands to the pulse points on its wrists. “come on. what the fuck.”
“yeah, i don’t think that asking nicely is going to do the trick,” hank said, his eyebrows raised. his helmet, the special one they’d decorated for him with craft supplies from michael’s when he’d gotten promoted to firestation chief, sat askew on his head. “i can see now why they didn’t pass you.”
annabelle rolled her eyes. “it’s a psychological thing,” she said. “it’s like, you give the brain an instruction and it follows naturally. and the pulse-point thing always works. i don’t know why it’s not, like, in any of the books, but i swear to god it’s worked for me every time.”
it was true that annabelle had the best record on low body counts, which was good because she was the smallest person on the team not counting Georgie, who was a corgi. jake and lillian were always making fun of her for having been the shortest of their whole rookie class. but it hadn’t ever been a problem before; annabelle rarely had to carry anybody out, because she was good enough at getting them on their feet.
but none of that would matter if she couldn’t pass her stupid recertification exam, because they’d take her badge and she’d have to go be, like, a doctor or something.
hank blew out a long breath and sunk down to where she was kneeling on the station floor in full fire gear, giving CPR to the practice dummy, whom they called dierdre. there was a little light that went on when you’d saved its life. it had been a dull gray for an hour now.
“look, AB. i know you’re a good firefighter, and i know you know how to deliver CPR. just do it like you do it during an emergency. you’re overthinking it.”
“but this is what i do during an emergency!” annabelle cried, throwing her hands up. “i put my hands on their pulse points and i use psychological mumbo-jumbo and they just get up and walk!”
hank blinked. “…really,” he said, voice flat. “people who’ve been inhaling smoke for half an hour just … get up and walk.”
“the brain is an incredibly powerful organ,” said annabelle, shrugging. “look man, i don’t know, okay? but it works. i haven’t had to actually do CPR in like a year and a half.”
he gave her a long, quiet look and said, “well….huh,” before pushing himself back up onto his feet and frowning off into the distance. “keep practicing,” he said after a minute, and left her there.
-
hank switched her team.
“what the fuck, man,” she said, sliding into the truck next to him as the sirens went on. “i can’t get CPR on one fucking dummy and suddenly you don’t trust me to do my job without supervision?”
carl and bethany very carefully did not meet her eyes in the rearview from the backseat. bethany pulled a magazine from beneath the seat and said loudly, “look, carl, jennifer aniston and brad pitt are getting back together.”
“thank christ,” said carl. “i’ve been really worried about jen.”
hank gave annabelle the flat look that had gotten him promoted to firestation chief in the first place, the one that said i’m your dad and you don’t want to disappoint me. as always, annabelle wilted underneath it, sliding down in her seat and crossing her arms over her chest. it was a difficult feat in full gear but she wanted him to know she was feeling sullen.
“i trust you completely,” hank told her, his voice a light scold. “i want to see you in action so i can help you figure out what’s going wrong with the dummies. sometimes it’s hard for the brain to accurately remember everything that happens during a crisis.”
annabelle rolled her eyes. “i told you,” she said. “it’s just – it’s the same thing every time, I’m not like, blacking out.”
“great, then i’m about to learn a cool new trick,” hank said serenely, and pulled the truck out of the lot. annabelle kept her gaze focused out of the window, watching the city pass as carl and bethany talked loudly about which celebrities were dating which other celebrities and who wore what better. she tried to swallow down the nerves that tightened her throat. maybe the dummy was right. maybe she was doing something else and didn’t remember it. maybe the last two years had been a fluke and she had no business being a firefighter. maybe she was about to get fired.
there wasn’t a fire, though the alarm was going off. instead they found a bag of smoking popcorn and the collapsed heap of a forty-five year old bachelor type, down to just his boxers and a pair of slippers with llamas on them. he had no pulse.
hank held carl and bethany back, directing them to deal with the smoke from the popcorn; annabelle he pointed toward the resident with a jerk of his chin.
she sighed, kneeling by his side. she pressed her hands flat to his heart and then dragged them across his chest and down each arm, to his wrists. with her thumbs on his pulse point, she hissed, “let’s go, man. up and at ’em. you’re not meant to die in your underwear while cooking popcorn, come on.”
she held her breath for a few moments, conscious of hank’s eyes on her, and let out a long sigh of relief when she felt his pulse jump beneath her, watched his eyes flicker. “what the fuck?” he asked, voice a croak. “what happened?”
“you gotta eat more vegetables, bud,” annabelle told him, and looped his arm over her shoulders to help him get to his feet. she was so relieved she could have wept, but instead met hank’s eyes with a challenging glare. see? she thought. i told you. “let’s get you to the ambulance.”
-
“the bad news is that you have a lot of practicing to do if you want to pass your recert,” hank said without preamble, showing up at her apartment. she didn’t think she’d ever seen him in jeans before. it was weird. “the good news is i understand your problem now.”
annabelle stepped aside, beckoning him in. “what problem?” she demanded. “it worked! you saw it work. that’s the opposite of a problem.”
hank shrugged. he handed her a trifold that he’d clearly printed off at home. it said so you think you’re a necromancer. annabelle blinked down at it, and then up at hank, and then down at the trifold again. “i … don’t understand what’s happening here,” she told him honestly.
“i’m not in the community and they’re kind of cagey, so i can’t really tell you a lot,” hank told her, stilted and visibly uncomfortable. “but i have a cousin who is, and um, i just want you to know that this doesn’t change anything. you’re still who you’ve always been and you have my complete support. we’ll figure out how to get around the recert. maybe i’ll – i can put you on admin duty to give you time to study. we’ll say it’s because of an injury.”
“hank,” annabelle said, with some urgency. “hank, this flier says the word necromancer.”
“yes,” agreed hank, looking relieved. “oh, good, you’ve heard of it already. i thought i was going to have to have the whole your body is changing talk.”
annabelle shook her head. “no, i – hank. you know that … um, you know that necromancy isn’t real, right? people can’t bring other people back from the dead. that’s crazy.”
“annabelle, not four hours ago you instructed a dead man to stand up and he did.”
“okay, he wasn’t dead, obviously. he was almost dead, at best.”
“no. he was dead.”
“i felt his pulse! it was very faint!”
“you called his pulse. no one else would have felt it, because it wasn’t there except in response to you.”
“hank, what the fuck.”
he shrugged. “read the flier,” he instructed. “and bring dierdre home with you. you’re going to have to practice a lot if you want to get recertified, considering you haven’t one time had to use any of the skills you learned the first go around.”
he bussed her temple as he went by, letting himself out of her apartment with a friendly wave. annabelle looked down at the flier in her hand with a frown. when she unfolded it, the first page said, everyone’s necromancy journey is different, but most people discover their gift by accident. have you ever brought a pet back to life? touched an elderly relatives hand and seen some of the color flood back into their face? or perhaps, more subtly, been able to keep cut flowers alive long past their purchase date?
annabelle looked at her kitchen table. she’d had the same vase of tulips on it since she moved in, three years ago. it was true they periodically started to wilt, but she usually just changed their water and they were fine, popping back up one after the other as she slid them into the fresh vase.
“well shit,” annabelle said, letting the flier fall from her hands.
i wish people would stop romanticizing not eating breakfast and not getting enough sleep and being dependent on coffee to function and always being in a bad mood and treating yourself poorly because that behavior is very unhealthy for you
He’s right.
[ID: manga panel of Laios Touden from Dungeon Meshi yelling “We’ve been eating three square meals a day and getting plenty of sleep…” “And that makes us more serious about this than you are!!” /End ID]
You guys need to see this because my brain has decided "have you heard of seventy dollars??" is a widely known meme I can reference regularly (it is not)
"Adaptive preferences" is a framework for understanding how people who have what appears to be an objectively poor quality of life can still not only appreciate their lives, but prefer them to other lives.
While it is sometimes used to invalidate disabled people who prefer their disability, which I do not think is good, it does help us understand an enormous amount of human identity creation.
"have you heard of seventy dollars?"
if it make your life worth living, please tell me more
Shirt that says REJECTING ONE INCORRECTLY BLACK AND WHITE VIEW OF HISTORY FOR ANOTHER IS NOT PROGRESS
booty shorts that say THE PROBLEM IS YOUR WHOLE PARADIGM, NOT THE ANGLE FROM WHICH YOU VIEW IT
for real tho it feels exhausting that ive seen this whole "woman should be allowed to abstain from X beauty standard" -> "i perform X beauty standard, am i evil? do you think im evil? please forgive me i came up with a dozen excuses 🥺" since like 2015 (and i know its been going on longer than that) like girl thats not the poiiiiint
look me in the eyes. repeat after me. "i face societal pressure to perform this beauty standard. i should not face that pressure. i conform to this standard. i am rewarded for performing to this standard. i need to respect women who do not perform this standard. this is not about whether or not i am a sinner for wearing makeup."
This is all true. But also, people are not acting irrationally when they respond defensively .
Getting called a sinner, or a scab or strikebreaker, or a collaborator, or being accused of breaking ranks or harming other women is pretty standard from the left. People policing ideological purity, people who resent anyone with more privilege, etc.
And they are also hammered from the right.
In fact, I can easily point to so many narratives where the villain is an aging woman trying to stay beautiful and/or retain power. Misogyny really does villainize women who try to conform to beauty standards unnaturally in order to maintain access to social standing.
There's an intuitive contempt for the intelligence and morality of beautiful women from both sides. I think of that painting of a naked woman looking in a mirror called Vanity, which judges the mafe up woman, not the painter, audiencevor social system.
Women who are older, fatter, or otherwise outside of the standard who took obvious steps are especially hard hit.
So it's really important to repeat. You are not a sinner.
And the system is hurting you and everyone else.
These are both true.
OK, here's the Real Important Thing: People who react defensively when posed with X topic and people who name-call in response are both acting irrationally (or selfishly, or stupidly, or childishly, take your pick), because they are derailing a discussion of systemic pressures to one that re-frames misogynistic beauty standards as a problem of personal responsibility, which misogynistic beauty standards are certainly not.
While it is enticing to believe that personal moral uprightness will one day uplift you from the lower realm of misogyny into a heaven free from unrealistic body standards, that's a fucking stupid idea and not how the real world works at all.
"Women being pressured to uphold X beauty standard" is not affected at all by whether or not you decide to do X on a personal level. It is simply a descriptor for how you have less social value if you don't.
To put it crudely, under misogynistic beauty standards, you can't "ugly" or "pretty" your way into "being valued while ugly". You can only "ugly" your way into "being less valued", and "pretty" your way into "being more valued". No amount of moving within a system will make you free of it.
People like to frame systemic issues as personal responsibilities, because personal responsibilities are small things that can be solved by the individual. It gives people the illusion of control (and someone to blame). However, systemic inequality is not addressed by sitting at home alone and letting your pubes grow. Neither is it addressed by saying mean shit to strangers for living under those same pressures as everyone else (crabs-in-a-bucket mentality). These are both bitch-ass measures that soothe the ego, but don't actually incite real change.
Systemic change is caused by challenging how you and other people perceive people under the systems of inequality, maintaining the active conversation about inequality, and addressing inequality through action. Things like making more people conscientious of biases in how you and other people are treated for not adhering to the established social rule, and speaking out to protect undervalued people in areas where you actually do have social power.
So when a conversation about systemic pressure (Ex:"Women should be allowed to abstain from shaving their legs") has dozens of responses of "I shave my legs🥺🥺🥺 am I a bad person? 🥺🥺🥺", that is dozens of people completely missing the point.
If instead of worrying about their own shaved legs, they spoke up the next time they heard someone without shaved legs get called "gross" or "lazy", maybe we might be getting somewhere.
When a topic like this has dozens of responses in the notes where people are like, "you see, you are actually a bad person," that is also a lot of people missing the point.
See this post's notes.
When someone responds to topics like this with, hey, "am I a bad person, I don't want to be a sinner", you can respond with, "no, this is a systemic issue. It's unjust to blame people who are trying to survive systems of inequality for the horrific conditions through which they try to survive. Your complicated relationship to [x thing] is part of a system and structure that harms everyone. Don't hate yourself, don't judge other people either, kill the cop in your head first."
When someone says, "yeah, you need to be better! I enjoy ensuring the left is morally pure and exporting guilt!" it's a bit more tricky to find a way to connect people with what is useful.
Systemic change begins to occur when we unlearn cultural patterns of guilt, harm, and extraction. As long as people are still playing king of the mountain, they are still enacting the same pattern-- same OS different skin.
We are all living in the system that hurts us. We all have to survive it. It is not irrational to respond to hurt in a way that protects yourself.
It is not irrational to want to be loved or likable--rather, it is one of the most basic human drives.
It is not irrational to seek power through shaming others for not conforming to your politics: that behavior is extensively modelled and hard to unlearn.
There are simply better, more effective ways to respond.
It's irrational to think you are genuinely going to free yourself of the dominant hegemonic system that is encoded into your language, culture, institutions, and science, without having to learn how to negotiate from within it. Hopeful, but irrational.
You really are stuck on my use of the word "irrational," huh? It might make sense to you, outside observer, that people are acting that way in response to these kinds of posts described by OP, but that doesnt mean they are responding rationally. An action being understandable or sympathetic and an action being irrational are not mutually exclusive.
When people are responding to something emotionally or by lashing out reflexively, are not motivated by reasoning and are not responding by addressing the current situation, their actions are irrational. Someone acting on habit or according to a practiced behavior without reflecting or reasoning is acting irrationally.
The line of thinking "this post made me feel guilty for X beauty standard and its OP's fault" is irrational. People who are clearly pulling in responses and rebuttals to the conversations they wish they were having instead of the one they are actually having with OP up there, are also not thinking clearly about what they are doing and who they are actually talking to. Having war flashbacks to back when you were in the online trenches arguing about shaving your pits is not rational thinking.
Again, this is a post about post responses. Not an actual example of the post being described. People are acting like it is the latter and turning themselves into examples of the people criticized of their own volition. If you think these replies aren't irrational, then I guess rationality is now a civil partner to the poorest of reading comprehension.
IMO telling people they being irrational is an important part of this. It is easy to have a hostile gut reaction and assume there is a reasoned truth behind your response, when the reality is you felt hurt and lashed out at someone, like a child. Actions like that are understandable, but not rational and dont need to be validated by others. A grown ass person's responsibility for emotionally regulating themselves does not need to be turned into a community issue.
It might help you contextually to understand that I am actually responding to the notes, and I even tagged some responses in the notes to say I had reblogged. So I am talking to people in the notes, which is unusual for Tumblr.
My point here is to re-emphasize a key portion of OP's message -- that no one here is a sinner and that the reflex towarrds judgement or cruelty is counterproductive and re-enacts the same system you are protesting.
We have strongly different ideas of the word rational and it's uses. That's ok. My background with disability justice and neuroethics and mind-focused misogyny makes the word strongly suspect anyway. I am also spending a lot more time with feminist care ethics than many people, which means we're gonna have different beliefs about our responsibility to others.
I feel like the crux of our disagreement is that I am emphasizing that no one is a Sinner or a Bad Person or worthy of being verbally abused or insulted because of their acculurated esponse to a system that hurts them. Such ideas, which the notes are full of, are equally or even more of a problem than defensive responses.
That includes people shaped by misogyny and Anglo protestant culture to feel guilt/ shame/fear/devaluation if everyone doesn't like them all the time, a factor connected to why nakeup feels compulsive. More guilt, more insults, more justified contempt and dismissal, is more enacting the patriarchy.
The problem of contempt coming from both sides reveals contempt as part of the system of control.
And your rhetoric seems to sometimes enact insults or contempt as simply part of how we do business. The line about rationality and poor reading comprehension is very very clever, by the way. It's a zinger.
So I am not actually disagreeing about a lot of substantial topics you bring up. I agree that someone experiencing a trauma trigger is not in a good place to discuss or rethink things.
I am trying to show another underlying systemic force that works along with devaluation based on looks, which is the larger concern of devaluation.
This keeps people locked in place.
If someone on the right could take a post or comment and say "you're right! Women are sooo irrational and dumb! They always are so fucking vain, and it's totally their own fault for trying so hard. They should just wise up, the dumb bitches. That's why they need men to tell them what to do, that's why I feel justified in feeling superior etc"
Then has that post or comment done a feminism, or has it reinscribed masculine standards for respect and longstanding contempt?
Looking for ways to continue feeling self righteous contempt is as counterproductive as looking for ways to continue feeling safe, because it's the same thing.
let's actually rethink the systemic and socioculturally determined oppression within which we exist instead.
Feel free to do that on your own. If you think that the good thing to do is to recruit people to do that for others, go ahead. You don't have to try to convince me to do the same, because I don't, and I won't. Also, I don't represent anyone besides me, so you don't have to pull references from any sides to explain what tone or position you think I'm supposed to have. Hell, you even don't know my personal stance on feminism, or makeup, or shaving pubes, and you never will. If you feel particularly sore about irrational responses being called "irrational," because it's (presumably) women I'm speaking to, my tone reads as masculine, and those elements combined turns it into a misogynistic trigger word for you, that seems like something you need to figure out for yourself. I explained to you as clearly as I could why I said "irrational", and my use of it still makes sense to me. I'm not going to go farther to convince you to be comfortable with my word choice. You can have your opinion, and I can disagree. Also, I may have spoken inconsistently, but I don't think I actually told anyone they are "irrational," but wrote specifically "having irrational feelings," "irrational actions," or "behaving irrationally," avoiding actually assigning "irrationality" as a trait to the person I was speaking to (like "sinner"). I don't know if the distinction matters to you, but it does to me. I'm not someone who needs to be coached from a mindset of believing that people are sinners or otherwise immutably flawed due to their character or demographic. Thinking I am means making a lot of assumptions about me and my beliefs. I don't think its stigmatizing to hold grown people up to standards that they are capable of. The person I made the original reply to was able to see how they (no pronouns in bio) were falling into acting exactly like the kind of person being talked about by OP after further conversation with OP. Also, the person who I responded to was not reacting to a trauma trigger but was being reflective and conversational. People like that can handle being checked a little if they acting foolish. Saying that people's feelings from what they are projecting onto OP's post are not OP's fault isn't unreasonable. Saying that they don't have to take so much personal stock into feelings of guilt, that the feeling of guilt in response to hearing that they are following an unfair social pressure is just a reflexive irrational tick in their lizard brain, isn't unreasonable. Feelings happen, and they shouldn't always guide your behavior. Feel them, and move on. Maybe if people weren't so afraid of feeling shame (or being disagreed with), it wouldn't be so easy to use shame to control them.
Fantastic, I understand now.
I am trying to create a thoughtful, complex addition that advances and complicates OP's initial post about the most effective way to talk about and engage with systemic misogyny, by reminding people that structures of shame, contempt, and blaming individual women cannot be used to dismantle a system that functions through shame, contempt, and blaming individual women, in a masters house, masters tools sort of way.
I have never blamed OP, or disagreed, and only amplified the original point that it is counterproductive to localize blame in individuals. Rather I am addressing both individuals in comments and larger conceptual factors that are relevant to OP's concerns about changing our response to people who don't meet oppressive standards.
I am trying to bring additional theoretical frameworks to bear on the way oppression operates through value judgements about worthy minds, worthy morals, and worthy bodies, based on work I am doing with disability ethics.
You don't want to rethink the systemic and socioculturally determined oppression within which we exist. You don't think this is a good thing to do and you never will.
You want, rather, to make it clear that you are justified for pointing out that it is irrational for people to be defensive for feeling judged, without ever engaging substantively with my larger points.
So yeah. For sure, you are using the word irrational correctly according to many standard usages. You are making accurate statements about the way people's trauma triggers and acculturated defensiveness interact with public discourse poorly. You are making a valuable distinction between inherent qualities and ontological nature, and using language precisely. Well done.
We agree that shame is used to control people.
It does leave me wondering, if you don't actually care about rethinking systemic oppression, what you are doing on a post about dealing with systemic oppression and pressure to conform. Like, fantastic job derailing, potentially. This is quite thought-provoking for me.
I've seen some posts trying to make fun of former gifted kids by comparing them to former student athletes who insist that they could have gone pro if not for a specific injury, and those posts always backfire, because my reaction to them is "You're right, we should treat former student athletes with more compassion than we currently do"
I went from being very physically active to getting the "your body doesn't make energy properly anymore" disability so I can completely understand the grief that comes with circumstances outside your control destroying parts of you you were once proud of and locking you out of the life you could have had. It's not a good feeling.
"More compassion" is very rarely a bad decision
repeat after me. humans are not inherently evil humans are not like a virus on this earth humans do not “deserve” to go extinct or anything like that. we are living breathing animals that deserve space just like every other creature on this planet. there’s just a tiny amount of us that have a fuck ton of money and power and they really suck
I'd like to add that getting mired in this mindset makes it harder to actually change the way we interact with this planet. If we're a "parasite", and it's inevitable that we'll damage the natural world, than what's the point of trying to be better? It's just another form of inaction. The only way we get out of this is by acknowledging that we're part of the global ecosystem, and embracing that role with responsibility.
Possibly my spiciest take is that it's actually good to have people you respect and like that have some dogshit takes.
I think part of what is making young people lonelier, in discussing why they're increasingly isolated, is that they're so afraid of meeting someone who doesn't hold their same beliefs, and instead of being just core beliefs it is kinda ancillary shit.
It's actually okay to disagree even on social topics! Even on some political ones! But I mean, online you can start with "i love this mutual but they have a really bad/uninformed opinion about x media"
I know this is IMMEDIATELY going to be taken in bad faith, and yes babygirl, you are so right, I DO want you to go make best friends with both the KKK grand wizard AND your nearest nazi leader.
But seriously, as someone who has spent two decades doing community organization: finding ways to connect with different people is so so so important. There are people i follow here who ate 80% smart and their brain falls out of their head 20% of the time and that is GOOD FOR MY MENTAL ECOSYSTEM AND GOOD FOR LEARNING HOW TO BE A PERSON
LET'S ALL GO PISS ON THE POOR
It’s also good to assume you probably are the friend whose brain falls out 20% of the time.
We all have blind spots, assumptions, and dogshit take from time to time. They can’t all be winners.
"what if abusive parents.... are trying their best? are good people in bad situations? what if their children understood how hard it is to be a parent and to have to handle them? what if this shitty parent—get this, this is groundbreaking—is actually Sad and needs forgiveness?" — every fucking piece of media for some reason
The response to this is that, of course! many of them are, and their good intentions do not make them not abusive and harmful.
It's so important to not conflate Harmful Behavior with Bad Person.
When people don't get it that people who are enacting harm are not like, ontologically bad, it becomes impossible to say, sure you're a good person in a bad situation and also, you're abusing your child and these two things co-exist. Figure out how to do better instead of asking for absolution on "actually I was abused myself" moral immunity grounds.
This is part of why shaming people is counterproductive to asking them to actually improve their behavior/ They will try to fix the shame, not the behavior.
for real tho it feels exhausting that ive seen this whole "woman should be allowed to abstain from X beauty standard" -> "i perform X beauty standard, am i evil? do you think im evil? please forgive me i came up with a dozen excuses 🥺" since like 2015 (and i know its been going on longer than that) like girl thats not the poiiiiint
look me in the eyes. repeat after me. "i face societal pressure to perform this beauty standard. i should not face that pressure. i conform to this standard. i am rewarded for performing to this standard. i need to respect women who do not perform this standard. this is not about whether or not i am a sinner for wearing makeup."
This is all true. But also, people are not acting irrationally when they respond defensively .
Getting called a sinner, or a scab or strikebreaker, or a collaborator, or being accused of breaking ranks or harming other women is pretty standard from the left. People policing ideological purity, people who resent anyone with more privilege, etc.
And they are also hammered from the right.
In fact, I can easily point to so many narratives where the villain is an aging woman trying to stay beautiful and/or retain power. Misogyny really does villainize women who try to conform to beauty standards unnaturally in order to maintain access to social standing.
There's an intuitive contempt for the intelligence and morality of beautiful women from both sides. I think of that painting of a naked woman looking in a mirror called Vanity, which judges the mafe up woman, not the painter, audiencevor social system.
Women who are older, fatter, or otherwise outside of the standard who took obvious steps are especially hard hit.
So it's really important to repeat. You are not a sinner.
And the system is hurting you and everyone else.
These are both true.
OK, here's the Real Important Thing: People who react defensively when posed with X topic and people who name-call in response are both acting irrationally (or selfishly, or stupidly, or childishly, take your pick), because they are derailing a discussion of systemic pressures to one that re-frames misogynistic beauty standards as a problem of personal responsibility, which misogynistic beauty standards are certainly not.
While it is enticing to believe that personal moral uprightness will one day uplift you from the lower realm of misogyny into a heaven free from unrealistic body standards, that's a fucking stupid idea and not how the real world works at all.
"Women being pressured to uphold X beauty standard" is not affected at all by whether or not you decide to do X on a personal level. It is simply a descriptor for how you have less social value if you don't.
To put it crudely, under misogynistic beauty standards, you can't "ugly" or "pretty" your way into "being valued while ugly". You can only "ugly" your way into "being less valued", and "pretty" your way into "being more valued". No amount of moving within a system will make you free of it.
People like to frame systemic issues as personal responsibilities, because personal responsibilities are small things that can be solved by the individual. It gives people the illusion of control (and someone to blame). However, systemic inequality is not addressed by sitting at home alone and letting your pubes grow. Neither is it addressed by saying mean shit to strangers for living under those same pressures as everyone else (crabs-in-a-bucket mentality). These are both bitch-ass measures that soothe the ego, but don't actually incite real change.
Systemic change is caused by challenging how you and other people perceive people under the systems of inequality, maintaining the active conversation about inequality, and addressing inequality through action. Things like making more people conscientious of biases in how you and other people are treated for not adhering to the established social rule, and speaking out to protect undervalued people in areas where you actually do have social power.
So when a conversation about systemic pressure (Ex:"Women should be allowed to abstain from shaving their legs") has dozens of responses of "I shave my legs🥺🥺🥺 am I a bad person? 🥺🥺🥺", that is dozens of people completely missing the point.
If instead of worrying about their own shaved legs, they spoke up the next time they heard someone without shaved legs get called "gross" or "lazy", maybe we might be getting somewhere.
When a topic like this has dozens of responses in the notes where people are like, "you see, you are actually a bad person," that is also a lot of people missing the point.
See this post's notes.
When someone responds to topics like this with, hey, "am I a bad person, I don't want to be a sinner", you can respond with, "no, this is a systemic issue. It's unjust to blame people who are trying to survive systems of inequality for the horrific conditions through which they try to survive. Your complicated relationship to [x thing] is part of a system and structure that harms everyone. Don't hate yourself, don't judge other people either, kill the cop in your head first."
When someone says, "yeah, you need to be better! I enjoy ensuring the left is morally pure and exporting guilt!" it's a bit more tricky to find a way to connect people with what is useful.
Systemic change begins to occur when we unlearn cultural patterns of guilt, harm, and extraction. As long as people are still playing king of the mountain, they are still enacting the same pattern-- same OS different skin.
We are all living in the system that hurts us. We all have to survive it. It is not irrational to respond to hurt in a way that protects yourself.
It is not irrational to want to be loved or likable--rather, it is one of the most basic human drives.
It is not irrational to seek power through shaming others for not conforming to your politics: that behavior is extensively modelled and hard to unlearn.
There are simply better, more effective ways to respond.
It's irrational to think you are genuinely going to free yourself of the dominant hegemonic system that is encoded into your language, culture, institutions, and science, without having to learn how to negotiate from within it. Hopeful, but irrational.
You really are stuck on my use of the word "irrational," huh? It might make sense to you, outside observer, that people are acting that way in response to these kinds of posts described by OP, but that doesnt mean they are responding rationally. An action being understandable or sympathetic and an action being irrational are not mutually exclusive.
When people are responding to something emotionally or by lashing out reflexively, are not motivated by reasoning and are not responding by addressing the current situation, their actions are irrational. Someone acting on habit or according to a practiced behavior without reflecting or reasoning is acting irrationally.
The line of thinking "this post made me feel guilty for X beauty standard and its OP's fault" is irrational. People who are clearly pulling in responses and rebuttals to the conversations they wish they were having instead of the one they are actually having with OP up there, are also not thinking clearly about what they are doing and who they are actually talking to. Having war flashbacks to back when you were in the online trenches arguing about shaving your pits is not rational thinking.
Again, this is a post about post responses. Not an actual example of the post being described. People are acting like it is the latter and turning themselves into examples of the people criticized of their own volition. If you think these replies aren't irrational, then I guess rationality is now a civil partner to the poorest of reading comprehension.
IMO telling people they being irrational is an important part of this. It is easy to have a hostile gut reaction and assume there is a reasoned truth behind your response, when the reality is you felt hurt and lashed out at someone, like a child. Actions like that are understandable, but not rational and dont need to be validated by others. A grown ass person's responsibility for emotionally regulating themselves does not need to be turned into a community issue.
It might help you contextually to understand that I am actually responding to the notes, and I even tagged some responses in the notes to say I had reblogged. So I am talking to people in the notes, which is unusual for Tumblr.
My point here is to re-emphasize a key portion of OP's message -- that no one here is a sinner and that the reflex towarrds judgement or cruelty is counterproductive and re-enacts the same system you are protesting.
We have strongly different ideas of the word rational and it's uses. That's ok. My background with disability justice and neuroethics and mind-focused misogyny makes the word strongly suspect anyway. I am also spending a lot more time with feminist care ethics than many people, which means we're gonna have different beliefs about our responsibility to others.
I feel like the crux of our disagreement is that I am emphasizing that no one is a Sinner or a Bad Person or worthy of being verbally abused or insulted because of their acculurated esponse to a system that hurts them. Such ideas, which the notes are full of, are equally or even more of a problem than defensive responses.
That includes people shaped by misogyny and Anglo protestant culture to feel guilt/ shame/fear/devaluation if everyone doesn't like them all the time, a factor connected to why nakeup feels compulsive. More guilt, more insults, more justified contempt and dismissal, is more enacting the patriarchy.
The problem of contempt coming from both sides reveals contempt as part of the system of control.
And your rhetoric seems to sometimes enact insults or contempt as simply part of how we do business. The line about rationality and poor reading comprehension is very very clever, by the way. It's a zinger.
So I am not actually disagreeing about a lot of substantial topics you bring up. I agree that someone experiencing a trauma trigger is not in a good place to discuss or rethink things.
I am trying to show another underlying systemic force that works along with devaluation based on looks, which is the larger concern of devaluation.
This keeps people locked in place.
If someone on the right could take a post or comment and say "you're right! Women are sooo irrational and dumb! They always are so fucking vain, and it's totally their own fault for trying so hard. They should just wise up, the dumb bitches. That's why they need men to tell them what to do, that's why I feel justified in feeling superior etc"
Then has that post or comment done a feminism, or has it reinscribed masculine standards for respect and longstanding contempt?
Looking for ways to continue feeling self righteous contempt is as counterproductive as looking for ways to continue feeling safe, because it's the same thing.
let's actually rethink the systemic and socioculturally determined oppression within which we exist instead.
the phrase "but i didn't mean to!" in the context of causing harm is kind of redundant to me, because almost nobody means to cause harm. most of us just want to do the right thing. and i don't mean that in a wishy-washy "oh, we're all good deep down" way, i mean that even people who regularly do the most heinous shit imaginable will have a way of justifying it to themselves. the world is not populated by hollywood sadists and psychopaths.
actually i have been thinking about this some more and i want to add on to it:
abuse in caregiving professions (like teaching or nursing) is not solely a result of power dynamics. it's also because people who go into those professions often have a idea of themselves as Good People, and are consequently incapable of recognising or acknowledging when they've hurt someone else. instead, they mentally put 'people who have inconvenienced me' into the Bad People box so they can freely abuse them while maintaining their moral high ground.
i read ross greene a lot when i was working with "difficult" or "behaviourally challenged" children. his refrain is "kids do well if they can" - meaning, in short, that most kids act out only when the demands of a situation exceed their capabilities. punishing them for this is not only cruel but also completely pointless, because they also don't want to be doing what they are doing.
a teacher who believes that there are two categories of people - Good People who Mean Well, and Bad People who Cause Problems on Purpose - is not going to see it that way. they're gonna put themselves in the first category, and the misbehaving kid in the second category. and once they have effectively depersoned the child and placed themselves on a pedestal, the world becomes simple again. because abuse is something that only Bad People do.
This is a fantastic addition that can be expanded to a great deal of moral purity culture. Including a great many people who believe they care about justice or leftist causes. I strongly agree.
I am, for the first time, struck by the contrast between "children will do well if they have the resources'' and a world where our 'caring professionals ' seem to act out a lot lot lot of the time. because Good Person, Bad Person is really a child view of reality, yes? or is it not that adults haven't outgrown it, but that children have to be acculurated into it?
Also. teenagers will absolutely be cruel on purpose because some of the empathy circuits need to catch up to the social awareness, it seems like. They will absolutely be cruel to adults they don't see as people, and the tendency to dehumanize certain authority figures that remind us of parents does seem to persist.
Do you have thoughts on how to complicate this? Beyond just, Good Person/Bad Person worldviews create harm and are primarily useful for camouflaging abuse and harm without guilt?
“my friend is ALWAYS sick and cancelling our plans” it sounds like your friends life suuucks and you should check on them
One of the worst parts of being chronically ill is how lonely it gets. You need a community to help you but you realize just how conditional your friendships are on you being able bodied.
the spirit is unwilling and the flesh it feels not so good also