In every way this is set up to be a joke like any other short video, it even uses the trope of main character in a wig to represent their mom, but it isn't funny at all. It's just sweet and nice
Toni Morrison: [describes giving her creative writing students an exercise designed to force them to practice using their imagination and empathy by adopting new perspectives outside their comfort zones]
the reblogs: oh? so that pretentious bitch opposes indigenous people making art about colonialism? she says my experiences donât matter? she killed my dog?
Hank Green using AI "for research" is absolutely ridiculous and fucked up obviously. But reading his big statement about it I genuinely think someone needs to get this man to a neurologist for an evaluation and possibly do an MRI of his brain. Half of this seems written by chatgpt and the other half by someone in clear cognitive decline.
Some paragraphs are very clearly written in a very different way than others, to a much poorer standard. My best guess is that he had a 'conversation' with chatgpt to figure out the statement then added some of his own words to it.
Both here and in his initial tweet admiting AI use he talks about 'going back to check his process' and 'my own process isn't actually clear to me' which?? What does that mean? You don't remember? You're the guy that did it?
Basically, increased co2 concentration in the air makes plants make more carbohydrates, but not take in more nutrients from the soil, so they grow faster but have a lower density of vitamins and minerals. Plus, they're "breathing" more efficiently and actually using slightly less water, so they're taking in even fewer nutrients. And the faster growth can't make up for the rates of damage due to climate instability (droughts, floods, extreme heat etc).
The research shows approximately a 3% drop in nutrient density since the 1980s, particularly in carbohydrate heavy crops (like most starchy staple foods), but so many people around the globe depend on those crops for over half their diet that it's very easy for them to fall into malnutrition without access to more expensive shit like enriched products, supplements, and even just fruits and vegetables. Like all the effects of the climate crisis, this impacts those least responsible first.
little graphic i made to work out my thoughts on patriarchy & how it Does Gender. to explain:
this is an analysis of how gender is conceptualized by (western) patriarchal ideology, not how people's "real genders" function. people can and do move through these categories throughout their lives, and even in different contexts and circumstances. it is not that anyone is inherently or statically a "hegemonic man" or "subaltern woman" but that these are constructs that the patriarchy applies to people to dictate how they perceive and relate to themselves and others, and how others perceive relate to them, for the sake of maintaining power over society. similarly, "queer" here means not just those who personally identify as queer/LGBT, but those who are read as being beyond the appropriate bounds of binary gender/sex/sexuality.
the patriarchy uses a binary way of seeing the world, but the system itself does not run on a gender binary. this is for two reasons: a) that no matter how hard it tries, no patriarchy can ever erase the existence of intersex, trans+, GNC/genderqueer, gay people, etc. who fall outside how the gender binary is understood. patriarchy may deny that these people exist, but in practice, the existence of queers is as fundamental to the patriarchy as the existence of men or women, because there is always deviation from the binary and it has to be recognized to be punished; and
b) because gender doesn't exist outside the context of other social hierarchies. lower/upper class women, black/white women, enslaved women/mistresses, virgin or housewife/whore, etc. for example. this allows the patriarchy to directly reinforce and uphold other aspects of kyriarchy, while also being able to write off the failure of its own binary model as corruption from lesser or less "civilized" ways of being a wo/man. going back to point 1, these are not static categories. the point is that gender is always tiered, even within the supposedly simple man/woman binary. when it comes to those classed as women specifically, this is important to understand as women at the top of other hierarchies (particularly class and race) make active bargains with the patriarchy and often have a clear stake in upholding major elements of it directly because of how their womanhood is understood.
the patriarchy creates stereotypical traits, which it treats as masculine or feminine. the pursuit of these traits serve as the rules by which one is expected to play, at least in public, to show one's allegiance to the patriarchy and the willingness to maintain its illusions. these traits serve to, in various ways, control and direct people's labor and engagement in society. men and women are seen as having innate "good" traits (benevolent sexist stereotypes) and "bad" traits (misogynistic and misandristic stereotypes). hegemonic men and women are primarily defined by the "good" traits, being seen as able to "suppress" the negative elements of being a man or a woman, and being able to exist perfectly on opposite sides of the binary. subaltern wo/men are primarily defined by the "bad" traits and must struggle constantly against this perception, or risk being seen as a "failed" wo/men and socially punished, often violently. in this way, hegemonic men and women define themselves in opposition to each other, but also in opposition to the undisciplined, carnal "gender excess" of subaltern wo/men and queers.
additionally, because manhood and womanhood are defined by hierarchy, subaltern wo/men inevitably blur the boundaries of the binary. this can be seen in multiple ways, but maybe the most direct is how wealth allows for a strong division between the public (masculinized) space vs the private (femininized) space, allowing for strong homosociality, while those in poverty live in overlapping heterosocial spaces and often cannot afford to constantly perform oppositional sexism (for example, poor women being family breadwinners). this means that, like failed wo/men and queers, they are subjected to both misogynistic and misandristic stereotypes. queers are also perceived as having uniquely ugly or immoral traits born from their failure to align with the binary (misandrogynistic stereotypes).
the way this is designed isn't meant to imply that subaltern men & women are on perfectly equal playing fields gender-wise; it's more for simplicity than anything, but as always Things Are More Complicated Than That.
this is should be understood as a lens the patriarchy applies to society & to people, which it attempts to place people within & frequently struggles in doing that. it's a measuring stick to be held up to a person or group of people to figure out how one should think about and relate to them, its a set of filters to be flipped through to figure out the "proper" light in which to see a person and their actions. its a conceptual & social tool.
sometimes people have a fairly definitive place and are categorized in a certain way fairly consistently; other times, people bounce around depending on the context and their behaviors and what elements of them and their position in society are the most relevant to the goals of whoever is doing the categorizing. & as a lens, it can be adopted and recreated by any community within patriarchal civilization.
the ultimate point of dividing man and woman into hegemonic (or dominant) vs subaltern is that in a society with hierarchy ingrained into every (or just about every) aspect of life and culture, womanhood and manhood are defined by the expectation of hierarchy. there is no society where gender is integral to social belonging, in which you have any kind of upper-class and lower-class, and the upper-class allows itself to be seen as perfectly equal on a gendered level to the lower-class. its my opinion that truly intersectional feminism means starting from intersectionality, not imagining gender as something that can ever be "pure" and divorced from other social system that only later "intersects" with other, originally non-gendered forces. people's social experience (being) gender(ed) is always profoundly shaped by whether they are seen as the ideal (civilized) woman or man, or a knockoff (uncivilized) woman or man, even as people on both sides pretend these are homogenous groups with essentially equivalent experiences of gender.
this also isn't to say the binary lens doesn't matter, either. patriarchal gender ideology uses both the above quintet and the strict m/f gendersex binary as tools. the point of describing patriarchal gender ideology beyond the binary is so that we can break away from feminist theory that remains stuck in patriarchal ways of seeing the world. if we cannot discuss the centrality of queerness and internal gender hierarchies to how the patriarchy functions in practice, our criticisms of it will always fall short and we will keep recreating elements of it in our own minds and communities.
we cannot break away from the binary without realizing that the binary was broken to begin with, it was made broken, it could never function if it was anything but; thus spoke Sophia Giovannitti: "Gender is never fixed; gender is always broken."
Kadji Amin joins Jules to talk the category nonbinary, the asymmetry of trans masculinity and trans femininity, and a shared love of f*gottr
I just found this and it's really bad
Wtf is this seriously.
Not only is this just an absolute circle jerk, but they view enben (in 2021 mind you) As a political statement, as something like oooh we're just shaking things up, we're so silly goofy.
Hey how about ask us?
This is the lady who goes to further her reactionary hatred of non binary people with her "transgender liberalism" article.
At least in 2021 they both treated us like some strange tropical bird they were studying. Now it's pure blame and hatred.
I am so curious as to the confusion around self-determination in regards to trans people "You just say who you are and everyone has to respect it?" what about that is hard to understand? That's how it works, you say what you are and people are supposed to respect it?? Enbies aren't anywhere near as confusing as whatever the fuck way these people conceptualize being trans is.
Are they seriously only trans because of society?? This makes it sound like they feel no internal sense of self at all?? And the worst part is this is how cis people see gender, being trans is impossible and makes no sense, you're just saying who you are! It doesn't correspond to reality!! I don't understand!! That's how they see them and they obviously know it's wrong, why does it suddenly not make sense when it's an enby person instead of a binary cis person???
Maybe next time she could try actually interviewing an enby person instead of just speculating about and speaking as an authority on something she and her guest clearly do not understand even a little.
Literally! Amin says too "I live as a man, and that means I don't have to think about my internal gender." they are only conceptualize being trans as choosing to adhere to gender binary and they don't want to think about it any harder
What do they mean by "phenominologically"? Kind of feels like a way of saying "biological sex" like sort of a transmed thing, "if you have a penis you are a man if you havr breasts you are a woman you cant go saying youre someyhing else" kinda situation?
Phenomenology is a philosophical study and movement largely associated with the early 20th century that seeks to objectively investigate the nature of subjective, conscious experience and world-disclosure. It attempts to describe the universal features of consciousness while avoiding assumptions about the external world
they're using it as a "we are physical reality. you (non binary) are a theoretical concept that we (the experts) are going to talk about." It's just a bunch of bullshit that these kinds of academics do. The article is full of words that try to make themselves sound smart while saying nothing
As someone who draws heavily from phenomenology, I don't even really understand what he means here.
Phenomenology is a philosophical approach which rejects a thinking mind/feeling body divide and focuses on embodied experience as a source of knowledge. Given the context, it seems like Amin (in the most pretentious way possible) is saying that to him, being nonbinary is just about changing your pronouns and nothing else, so he doesn't understand how the embodied experience of a nonbinary person is different to not being nonbinary (either as a cis person or a trans person).
This is, of course, extremely stupid. Nonbinary people do tend to identify as nonbinary because of an internal sense of gender (or lack thereof). As pointed out in the comments, nonbinary people often feel illegible our entire lives, our sense of ourselves having shaped both our internal and often external experiences of the world. Many have dysphoria or euphoria, and being nonbinary affects their relationship with themselves and their body, other people, society at large. Nonbinary people do frequently pursue HRT and surgery, but even those that do not may alter clothing, hair, or change their body in ways not seen as inherently "trans" but which are tied to their nonbinarity (such as tattoos and other body mods).
This may not be all visible to you, but its also something nonbinary people do talk about and which one could easily learn about from asking nonbinary people about their experiences with gender. Amin is using this flowery academic language to disguise the fact that his point here is entirely that he thinks being nonbinary is a shallow aesthetic/political choice that impacts nothing about your life, and he is playing dumb like no one is discussing nonbinary experiences even though, as a trans person, he must have heard nonbinary people discuss their lived gender experiences before.
This whole article is like 90% them finding different jargony ways to say "I do not understand what a nonbinary person is and I refuse to learn, and that is nonbinary people's fault" and 10% anti-transmasculine "FTMs have it easier" folk myth thrown in for flavor.
THIS. This is what itâs like when you realize how deeply sexism and misogyny are woven into the fabric of our daily lives. And once you see it, you canât stop seeing it. Itâs everywhere. Â
I used to compare societal sexism to those Magic Eye pictures from the eighties. Itâs hard to see the picture at first, and you have to sorta teach your eyes to make out the image hidden inside the graphical noise. But once you figure out how to see it, you can always see it. Itâs always there.
To get Caroline Bingley's character right, you have to understand that she is a foil for both the Bennet sisters and Mr. Darcy.
She is the more rational choice for Darcy vs. the Bennets. She has education, manners, a fortune, and clearly, relatives that he likes. So many fan fiction authors make her vulgar and/or unfashionable, but she isn't! That is why Darcy enjoys hanging out with her in the beginning; he would not have her at his house if she was embarrassing. Even when angry with Elizabeth, Caroline does not dare go further in attacking Elizabeth at Pemberley. She has self control. She understands boundaries, which Jane and Elizabeth mostly do, but the rest of the Bennet family struggles with. This is why she's a foil for them.
As for Darcy, at the beginning, Caroline is a nearly perfect mirror of his opinions and snobby attitude. She is doing this on purpose as a way of flirting, but it's probably pretty close to her real personality anyway. She's right that Darcy looks down on Elizabeth's uncle being a lower class lawyer. She's right that he finds the Bennet family intolerable to marry into. However, as Darcy falls in love with Elizabeth and then reforms, Caroline's mirror distorts. That shows his growth in the novel. She, like Elizabeth, fails to update her priors, though to be fair to Caroline, she didn't build her knowledge of Mr. Darcy on first impressions. It's harder to change her mind because she did once know him very well.
Side note: this is also why people woobyfying Darcy hurts Caroline as a rational character. They start in a very similar place and love mean girl gossiping together, then he changes. When Darcy's flaws are erased, it makes Caroline look super irrational and much crueller.
Lastly, Caroline is above all else, pragmatic and strategic. She does not hold grudges once it becomes more advantageous to drop them. She would never, ever, now that she is connected by marriage to the Bennets, mock them in public. Because that reflects on her! Caroline would be in London talking up that the Bennets are a very old gentry family with an ancient estate or something. She's going to be giving them a PR makeover to all her fancy friends because they are HERS now, for better or for worse and whether she likes any of them or not. Yes, in private she might be mean, as she is in the novel, but again, she's not vulgar and she has nothing to gain in public. She has manners, she has self-control; being a mean girl doesn't override that.
caroline bingley is a good character for explaining the difference between an antagonist in a story and a villain.
an antagonist in a story is someone who stands in the way of the protagonist (not always the same as the main character! but in P&P it is), or at the very least is able to obstruct them, or something else. but caroline is not a villain because after darcy falls in love with elizabeth, she holds no real power. not even influence! she does try to sway darcy away from elizabeth by continuing to make jokes about her and her family, and while it can't be said that darcy doesn't disagree about the family in general, he is very quick to show his colours regarding his feelings for elizabeth. this might and probably does put caroline on the back foot, but she wises up relatively quickly, especially once she sees their behaviour at pemberley. caroline is an annoyance to elizabeth, and hurtful to jane, but she's not a villain. if darcy's opinion of elizabeth had never changed and elizabeth fell in love with him anyway, caroline might have had a villain opportunity then, but his opinion did change and it shuts caroline out of that role completely.
a villain in a story is someone who actually has power to derail things for the protagonist. to use a different example, what would change about the wizard of oz if the wicked witch of the west had lost all her powers, or never had any in the first place? without the ability to affect dorothy's storyline in any meaningful way, she is no longer a threat. caroline was never a real threat to elizabeth, and i believe this is true even before darcy falls in love with lizzie. i don't think miss bingley was ever really a contender to become darcy's wife, at least, not from his point of view. there would have been no point in darcy's waiting to marry her if she had any real shot at it, because we know from the book he can act quickly and decisively if he wants to.
this is why wickham is the true villain of P&P, and the only villain of P&P. it is his destructive impulses (and perhaps liking the idea of revenge) that nearly leads to the bennet family's downfall. the worst part is, they're not really his target. of course, he probably didn't hate the idea of getting to hurt elizabeth in the bargain because she was no longer taken in by him, but his actual target was always darcy and darcy's money, money wickham felt entitled to. the bennets were merely collateral damage in wickham's quest to try to inflict as much damage on darcy's bank account and his reputation and his social standing as he possibly could.
it's also why jane austen is such a brilliant writer, because she's got this whole vengeance plot going on and it's not even directed towards the protagonist! much of it takes place outside of the events of the novel and is already well underway by the time it opens. did wickham benefit from lydia bennet's neglected upbringing and education? absolutely. but even if lydia had never been in the picture, wickham would have still done what he did.
caroline bingley and lady catherine are definitely antagonists to elizabeth's protagonist, but they are not actually able to inflict harm in the way a villain can. i'm not saying they don't try, but they're not villains because they do not realise they don't have as much power as they think.
caroline bingley deserves better because she is not actually a villain; she does not deserve the punishment readers and fic writers love to inflict on her because though she isn't friendly to elizabeth, that is not an offence worthy of what often happens to her in other stories.
everyone needs to hate the united states with me this saturday cause im gonna lose my goddamn mind having to hear the wildly undeserving american autofellatio that is the fourth of july.
hear me when i say that just about everything good that has come out of this country has come out of it in spite of what its founders intended it to be, in spite of what it sees itself as, in spite of its stated and unstated values and goals for itself and the world. in order to love the people of the americas you have to hate the united states.
its not that the founding fathers truly loved liberty and justice and just unfortunately misunderstood their own values. i mean to get real historical about it, rich fucks have been taking abstract concepts like that and defining them, and spinning entire webs of belief, around their specific standpoint and what ideologically and materially benefits them, for years. you can draw a line straight from Athens to Washington D.C to see how "democracy" has been malconceptualized for the benefit of rich fucks.
the united states is a hellhole. a lot of people have put a lot of work into making this hellhole a hellhome, in forcing the state to compromise with society and ensuring there are some genuine democratic elements, and that matters. but i have no love for the united states, i have no love for the founding fathers, i have no love for the wealthy euro-american businessmen who convinced the poor people of the british colonies to fight and die in a war that served only to ensure all of americas wealth went to them instead of the british, i have no love for George Washington who burned down countless villages and ransacked Haudenosaunee storehouses full of bushels and bushels of corn only for their agricultural technology and prosperity to be written out of history by men who glorified him, i have no love for the "anti-slavery" slave owners or the non-slave owners whose only problem with slavery is that it made them fear for their own souls but couldn't imagine a world where they lived side by side with a Black person as their equal, i have no love for the narrative that the Civil War was fought out of purehearted desire to free enslaved people when the North simply practiced a different form of slavery, wage slavery, which was more economical because you didn't have to provide housing and food for your workers as long as you paid them a pittance and made them figure out how to stay alive themselves, i have no love for the historical revisionism around WW2, i have no love for the expectation that i should be in any way remotely proud or admiring or thankful for Vietnam War veterans or Korean War or Iraq War veterans or our fucking drone operators, i don't have any love for any of it, IF THE WORD HAS POWER YOU SHALL NOT STAND AMERICA
it is true that fantasy is not historical fiction, and that it will always say as much about the time it was created in, the viewpoints of its creators, as much as it says about its own created world. this is true for historical fiction as well, of course. itâs always operating in those two simultaneous registers. but if you create a world - a secondary fantasy world, a historical epoch - i value the attempt to get outside the self, to treat the world you have created or are attempting to render as its own reality not reducible to or merely the mirror for the present, to take the specific beliefs that flow from a specific social structure (and the operative fantasy constructs that are shaping that structure) seriously more than what it can âsayâ about âour present.â i value fantasy for being able to say things about its own premises, or about the past (through running the past through fantasy elements). the moment when a work of fantasy notably fails in that attempt, falls back on a shorthand of the transcendently universal that doesnât honestly grapple with its own internal specifics, i find it precious, unrigorous, and deeply grating. thereâs a cowardice in it, a self-satisfaction, a lack of curiosity, that i often find very offputting.
It's really funny when doctors and medical professionals don't like, meaningfully understand how comorbidity works. "oh, it's very unlikely someone would have all these rare conditions at once"
yeah. maybe that would be fair to say about say, discrete viruses. but about syndromes?
like. the conditions of the human body don't know that they're taxonomically discrete. they don't know that they have different names or lists of symptoms. if a human body has a consistent issue with say, its heart rhythm, or its inflammatory response, or its glandular response, or immune system
the reason that ehlers-danlos syndrome (EDS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS), IBS (irritable bowel), autism, and even shit like coeliac and PMDD or endometriosis overlap is bc like. these are largely inflammatory issues or issues with the fascia
It's not "what the fuck, how can this person have all these different things wrong with them", bc these are largely like. syndromic definitions of how x bodily issue manifests in different systems, structures, or organs of the body
many of these conditions change in definition over time
and that's bc they're studied and understood more over time where people more meaningfully understand underlying causes and issues, such as through hormone or genetic profiles, or largely like. immune response
it's also how "rare" conditions become understood as more common over time
idk like. not to be on my soap box on this specific issue but this is what happens when you don't teach medical professionals philosophy beyond the basic ethical shit. the reason philosophy is important to medical study is so you don't mistake etymological or philological issues for scientific ones
genuinely I do love katara and sokka as a representation of how Indigenous people can be written in a fantasy setting and it was nice to have something like that in a childhood that was spent consuming a lot of media set in fantastical worlds. however I think if those are the only fictional Indigenous characters you can name, especially like as an adult, you should really make an effort to also engage with stories that portray real Indigenous people and cultures in the real world
actually Iâm going to add to this and say something that I know will be very controversial on tumblr but. if the only fictional Indigenous characters you as an adult can name in general are from solely childrenâs media, you should really make an effort to engage with a broader range of stories that portray real Indigenous people and cultures in the real world. sorry. I know this is a touchy subject. This isnât meant as an indictment of adults who engage with childrenâs media overall. I just think those shouldnât be, like, the only Indigenous characters youâre exposed to. respectfully. youâre going to be missing out on a lot of aspects of our stories, frankly. no matter how deep you think that story tailored to a child audience is. it very well may be. it was still written with children in mind first and foremost. please attempt to broaden your horizons.
and if Iâm being really honest? once youâve finished listing fictional Indigenous characters youâve heard of? my challenge to you, white tumblr user, is to name at least one work of non-fiction (book, essay, documentary, etc) created by an actual Indigenous person. youâre allowed to use search engines you just have to name one. and then you have to engage with that work, if you havenât already.
gummygunk
areudirty
germansingergirl
2087
tangentwithtanner
ellievsbear
