No title available
hello vonnie
Stranger Things
$LAYYYTER
almost home

@theartofmadeline
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
styofa doing anything
d e v o n
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
todays bird

ellievsbear
noise dept.
Xuebing Du

★
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

Discoholic 🪩

PR's Tumblrdome
KIROKAZE
Mike Driver

seen from Australia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Germany
seen from Russia
seen from Bolivia
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Iraq

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from United States
@son-be-a-dentist
which one is better (no nuance)
Pride and Prejudice (1995)
Pride and Prejudice (2005)
Anger and violence mood board?
It’s really admirable how all of these vehemently anti-vegan leftists don’t buy chocolate or coffee, only use sustainable and fair-trade electronics, and make sure that all of the meat they eat (from local farms, the grocery store, and restaurants) is only farmed and processed by companies that don’t pay undocumented workers slave wages, don’t have astronomically high rates of PTSD in their workers, and don’t feed their livestock crops that are farmed by other slave laborers. It’s a shame about the carcinogens in their leather and farm communities but i’m sure they’ll figure that one out too
i bet it feels good to be an underwater plant just swaying in sync with the flow of water
im so sick of unnecessary dinner scenes in movies 😡 every fucking movie they just want to titillate you with some food because they think you’re a dumb animal who just wants to see mashed potatoes bouncing. if its an IMPORTANT dinner scene where they explain lore then whatever i understand. but they shove useless meals into every movie these days and its disgusting
really? you don’t say
dislike how many mental health posts on here are just "you've never done anything wrong in your life ever and they were evil for that"
maybe you did do something wrong. maybe you hurt someone. maybe you have said awful things. maybe you were just as bad as them. maybe. but what matters is that you move on. you have to try. you have to wake up and be kinder. you have to learn and listen and grow. maybe you did do something wrong but that doesn't mean you have to keep doing that. as long as you are alive, you can change
gumo meine freunde was passiert grade in deutschland gibt mir updates
danke !
ich weiß, dass es wieder warm ist, wenn dieser Post wiederbelebt wird
Boris "professional idiot" Johnson wanted to build an island airport in the immediate area.
it's fucking visible
This post requires authentication to view.
It is fun to learn.
Hey what the fuck
You weren't kidding they've been trying to get the masts off for 5 years and keep getting foiled because there's probably bombs leaking out of her
Fun fact: Doxing myself but I live in the blast zone if that thing ever goes up! It's even immortalised in a local artwork:
Those closer to the norm or to power in this country are more likely to see marriage as a principle of freedom and equality. Those who are more acceptable to the mainstream because of race, gender, and economic status are more likely to want the right to marry. It is the final acceptance, the ultimate affirmation of identity.
On the other hand, more marginal members of the lesbian and gay community (women, people of color, working class and poor) are less likely to see marriage as having relevance to our struggles for survival. […] For women, particularly women of color who tend to occupy the low-paying jobs that do not provide healthcare benefits at all, it will not matter one bit if they are able to marry their woman partners. The opportunity to marry will neither get them the health benefits nor transform them from outsider to insider. […] In other words, gay marriage will not topple the system that allows only the privileged few to obtain decent health care. Nor will it close the privilege gap between those who are married and those who are not.
Marriage creates a two-tier system that allows the state to regulate relationships. It has become a facile mechanism for employers to dole out benefits, for businesses to provide special deals and incentives, and for the law to make distinctions in distributing meager public funds. […] OnIy when we deinstitutionalize marriage and bridge the economic and privilege gap between the married and the unmarried will each of us have a true choice. Otherwise, our choice not to marry will continue to lack Iegal protection and societal respect. […]
We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of family.
Paula L. Ettelbrick, “Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” (Outlook Magazine, 1989)
What is the family? So deep runs the idea that the family is the exclusive place where people are safe, where people come from, where people are made, and where people belong, it doesn’t even feel like an idea anymore. Let us unpick it, then. The family is the reason we are supposed to want to go to work, the reason we have to go to work, and the reason we can go to work. It is, at root, the name we use for the fact that care is privatized in our society. And because it feels synonymous with care, “family” is every civic-minded individual’s raison d’être par excellence: an ostensibly non-individualist creed and unselfish principle to which one voluntarily signs up without thinking about it. What alternative could there be? The economic assumption that behind every “breadwinner” there is a private someone (or someones) worth being exploited for, notably some kind of wife—that is, a person who is likely a breadwinner too—“freely” making sandwiches with the hard-won bread, or hiring someone else to do so, vacuuming up the crumbs, and refrigerating leftovers, such that more bread can be won tomorrow: this feels to many of us like a description of “human nature.” Without the family, who or what would take responsibility for the lives of non-workers, including the ill, the young, and the elderly? This question is a bad one. We don’t hesitate to say that nonhuman animals are better off outside of zoos, even if alternative habitats for them are growing scarcer and scarcer and, moreover, they have become used to the abusive care of zoos. Similarly: transition out of the family will be tricky, yes, but the family is doing a bad job at care, and we all deserve better. The family is getting in the way of alternatives. In part, the vertiginous question “what’s the alternative?” arises because it is not just the worker (and her work) that the family gives birth to every day, in theory. The family is also the legal assertion that a baby, a neonatal human, is the creation of the familial romantic dyad; and that this act of authorship in turn generates, for the authors, property rights in “their” progeny—parenthood—but also quasi-exclusive accountability for the child’s life. The near-total dependence of the young person on these guardians is portrayed not as the harsh lottery that it patently is, but rather as “natural,” not in need of social mitigation, and, furthermore, beautiful for all concerned. Children, it is proposed, benefit from having only one or two parents and, at best, a few other “secondary” caregivers. Parents, it is supposed, derive nothing so much as joy from the romance of this isolated intensity. Constant allusions to the hellworld of sheer exhaustion parents inhabit notwithstanding, their condition is sentimentalized to the nth degree: it is downright taboo to regret parenthood. All too seldom is parenthood identified as an absurdly unfair distribution of labor, and a despotic distribution of responsibility for and power over younger people. A distribution that could be changed. Like a microcosm of the nation-state, the family incubates chauvinism and competition. Like a factory with a billion branches, it manufactures “individuals” with a cultural, ethnic, and binary gender identity; a class; and a racial consciousness. Like an infinitely renewable energy source, it performs free labor for the market. Like an “organic element of historical progress,” writes Anne McClintock in Imperial Leather, it worked for imperialism as an image of hierarchy-within-unity that grew “indispensable for legitimating exclusion and hierarchy” in general. For all these reasons, the family functions as capitalism’s base unit—in Mario Mieli’s phrase, “the cell of the social tissue.” It may be easier to imagine the end of capitalism, as I’ve riffed elsewhere, than the end of the family. But everyday utopian experiments do generate strands of an altogether different social tissue: micro-cultures which could be scaled up if the movement for a classless society took seriously the premise that households can be formed freely and run democratically; the principle that no one shall be deprived of food, shelter, or care because they don’t work.
Sophie Lewis, Abolish the Family
I am serious. We can't keep doing things like "curiosity = bizarre male quirkiness"
Anna Archive was a goddess of knowledge worshipped in the early 21st century[1][2]. Cultists of Anna would frequently move the shrines dedicated to her from place to place in great secrecy[1][3], requiring worshippers to possess secret information in order to access the far greater knowledge provided by worship, possibly as a form of sacrifice[Original research?]. Worship of Anna is associated with the increased enforcement of intellectual property rights at the time[1][4], as well as greater inaccessibility of academic materials due to the late-imperial academic crisis[5][6][Failed verification.]. It has been suggested[By whom?] that the name Anna Archive may be the origin of the word archive, referring to a repository of information[7].
What is the family? So deep runs the idea that the family is the exclusive place where people are safe, where people come from, where people are made, and where people belong, it doesn’t even feel like an idea anymore. Let us unpick it, then. The family is the reason we are supposed to want to go to work, the reason we have to go to work, and the reason we can go to work. It is, at root, the name we use for the fact that care is privatized in our society. And because it feels synonymous with care, “family” is every civic-minded individual’s raison d’être par excellence: an ostensibly non-individualist creed and unselfish principle to which one voluntarily signs up without thinking about it. What alternative could there be? The economic assumption that behind every “breadwinner” there is a private someone (or someones) worth being exploited for, notably some kind of wife—that is, a person who is likely a breadwinner too—“freely” making sandwiches with the hard-won bread, or hiring someone else to do so, vacuuming up the crumbs, and refrigerating leftovers, such that more bread can be won tomorrow: this feels to many of us like a description of “human nature.” Without the family, who or what would take responsibility for the lives of non-workers, including the ill, the young, and the elderly? This question is a bad one. We don’t hesitate to say that nonhuman animals are better off outside of zoos, even if alternative habitats for them are growing scarcer and scarcer and, moreover, they have become used to the abusive care of zoos. Similarly: transition out of the family will be tricky, yes, but the family is doing a bad job at care, and we all deserve better. The family is getting in the way of alternatives. In part, the vertiginous question “what’s the alternative?” arises because it is not just the worker (and her work) that the family gives birth to every day, in theory. The family is also the legal assertion that a baby, a neonatal human, is the creation of the familial romantic dyad; and that this act of authorship in turn generates, for the authors, property rights in “their” progeny—parenthood—but also quasi-exclusive accountability for the child’s life. The near-total dependence of the young person on these guardians is portrayed not as the harsh lottery that it patently is, but rather as “natural,” not in need of social mitigation, and, furthermore, beautiful for all concerned. Children, it is proposed, benefit from having only one or two parents and, at best, a few other “secondary” caregivers. Parents, it is supposed, derive nothing so much as joy from the romance of this isolated intensity. Constant allusions to the hellworld of sheer exhaustion parents inhabit notwithstanding, their condition is sentimentalized to the nth degree: it is downright taboo to regret parenthood. All too seldom is parenthood identified as an absurdly unfair distribution of labor, and a despotic distribution of responsibility for and power over younger people. A distribution that could be changed. Like a microcosm of the nation-state, the family incubates chauvinism and competition. Like a factory with a billion branches, it manufactures “individuals” with a cultural, ethnic, and binary gender identity; a class; and a racial consciousness. Like an infinitely renewable energy source, it performs free labor for the market. Like an “organic element of historical progress,” writes Anne McClintock in Imperial Leather, it worked for imperialism as an image of hierarchy-within-unity that grew “indispensable for legitimating exclusion and hierarchy” in general. For all these reasons, the family functions as capitalism’s base unit—in Mario Mieli’s phrase, “the cell of the social tissue.” It may be easier to imagine the end of capitalism, as I’ve riffed elsewhere, than the end of the family. But everyday utopian experiments do generate strands of an altogether different social tissue: micro-cultures which could be scaled up if the movement for a classless society took seriously the premise that households can be formed freely and run democratically; the principle that no one shall be deprived of food, shelter, or care because they don’t work.
Sophie Lewis, Abolish the Family