eating an apple outside really is the closest you can get to smoking without smoking. some would think thats vaping but vaping is closer to eating a comically large lollipop in public
Stranger Things

Discoholic 🪩

Origami Around

Kaledo Art
Claire Keane

titsay
tumblr dot com
No title available
dirt enthusiast
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Game of Thrones Daily

izzy's playlists!
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

oozey mess
noise dept.
One Nice Bug Per Day
cherry valley forever
Sweet Seals For You, Always
macklin celebrini has autism
Monterey Bay Aquarium

seen from India

seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Austria

seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh

seen from Bangladesh

seen from Spain
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 Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@waytooshy
eating an apple outside really is the closest you can get to smoking without smoking. some would think thats vaping but vaping is closer to eating a comically large lollipop in public
these faces get me every time
tomorrow i have to give my daughter’s pikachu plushie gender-affirming surgery
Buf, casi le gana a la prensa hidráulica
this one gets a rating of:
Swag.
"Yeah, right. You cut us down, you ship us to your factories, you pulp us, print on us, fold us into little airplanes, wax us and drink coffee out of us, roll us into little balls to throw at each other in school, slap a strip of adhesive on a stack of us and use us to remind you to add paper clips to your shopping list ... and you think you've tamed us."
You know, I'm not surprised that something exploding with such force it breaks the camera has happened on a hydraulic press channel. I'm a little surprised at the fact it was post-it notes.
parenting commitment level 3000
apparently a requirement for working at poison control is a talent for stand-up comedy
i haven’t stopped thinking about this tweet for days
Okay and I’m gonna totally sound like my mom for a second here but it’s interesting that soooooooo many women in entertainment have careers based on “embracing their sexuality” but the vast majority of men in entertainment base their careers on like … being people…. and like maybe there’s a reason most men don’t seem to find going on stage in underwear “empowering”…? Bc it’s not…?
The thing about referring to a woman embracing her sexuality as "upholding the patriarchy" is that it's falling into like twelve discourse traps that the feminists of the past already fought their way through.
Time to read just a sprinkling of feminist theory!
Marliyn Frye's 1983 essay Oppression should not be at all controversial to modern radical feminists; its conclusion is that men are not oppressed as men, even if they experience deprivation for other reasons or are oppressed as other identities. But when I first read it in my feminist philosophy class in the mid 2010s (right before reading Crenshaw's essay on intersectionality, which complicated Frye's conclusion) the part that stuck with me was Frye's evocative metaphor of a birdcage:
Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.
Frye used this metaphor in the context of explaining the twin pressures to not be a slut AND not be a prude, illustrating how women are kept caged by a society that justifies punishment for both sexual availability and lack of sexual availability:
It is common in the United States that women, especially younger women, are in a bind where neither sexual activity nor sexual inactivity is all right. If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore. The “punishment” comes in the form of criticism, snide and embarrassing remarks, being treated as an easy lay by men, scorn from her more restrained female friends. She may have to lie to hide her behavior from her parents. She must juggle the risks of unwanted pregnancy and dangerous contraceptives. On the other hand, if she refrains from heterosexual activity, she is fairly constantly harassed by men who try to persuade her into it and pressure her into it and pressure her to “relax” and “let her hair down”; she is threatened with labels like “frigid,” “uptight,” “man-hater,” “bitch,” and “cocktease.” The same parents who would be disapproving of her sexual activity may be worried by her inactivity because it suggests she is not or will not be popular, or is not sexually normal. She may be charged with lesbianism...
It's been forty years since this essay was published, but the situation hasn't improved all that much with regard to the slut/prude double-bind. Women are pressured to be modest AND pressured to be sexy. If you're good at balancing these pressures, or if your personal style falls naturally ("naturally"🤔) between them, you may not even notice you've been caged. You may look at a woman in modest Mennonite dress and assume she has succumbed to the pressure to be modest; you may look at a woman in a push-up bra and a miniskirt and assume she has succumbed to the pressure to be sexy. But consider: did you yourself succumb to the pressure to be neither?
I had to dig back over ten years to find this comic by @rosalarian, but I'm glad I found it, because it encapsulates the problem pretty perfectly:
There is pressure to be sexually pleasing to men and there is pressure to NOT be sexually pleasing to men. This is not some "men want you to be slutty and feminists want you to be a prude" thing: BOTH of these pressures come, ultimately, from the patriarchy! The unifying theme is that women's sexuality should be entirely under male control; women should never make choices about their sexual expression based on what they personally find gratifying. They should entirely restrict their sexual behavior to whatever the nearest representative of patriarchal power happens to want in the moment, whether that's saving themselves for marriage or stripping for the camera.
The reason women are more likely to have careers based on "embracing their sexuality" is they're more likely to be forced to justify trying to look extremely sexy on purpose. Trying to look extremely sexy (and sexually available) on purpose is not limited to female pop stars by any means, but Sabrina Carpenter aggressively dressing like a pinup is political in a way that Harry Styles in leather pants with his tits out is not.
So it's time to drag out another classic of feminist theory: Deborah Tannen's 1993 article There Is No Unmarked Woman.
(It's a very short article and I'm reproducing nearly half of it in this post, so I encourage you to read it in full.)
As I amused myself finding coherence in these styles, I suddenly wondered why I was scrutinizing only the women. I scanned the eight men at the table. And then I knew why I wasn't studying them. The men's styles were unmarked. The term “marked” is a staple of linguistic theory. [...] The unmarked form of a word carries the meaning that goes without saying -- what you think of when you're not thinking anything special. [...] Each of the women at the conference had to make decisions about hair, clothing, makeup and accessories, and each decision carried meaning. Every style available to us was marked. The men in our group had made decisions, too, but the range from which they chose was incomparably narrower. Men can choose styles that are marked, but they don't have to, and in this group none did. Unlike the women, they had the option of being unmarked. Take the men's hair styles. There was no marine crew cut or oily longish hair falling into eyes, no asymmetrical, two-tiered construction to swirl over a bald top. One man was unabashedly bald; the others had hair of standard length, parted on one side, in natural shades of brown or gray or graying. Their hair obstructed no views, left little to toss or push back or run fingers through and, consequently, needed and attracted no attention. A few men had beards. In a business setting, beards might be marked. In this academic gathering, they weren't. There could have been a cowboy shirt with string tie or a three-piece suit or a necklaced hippie in jeans. But there wasn't. All eight men wore brown or blue slacks and nondescript shirts of light colors. No man wore sandals or boots; their shoes were dark, closed, comfortable and flat. In short, unmarked. Although no man wore makeup, you couldn't say the men didn't wear makeup in the sense that you could say a woman didn't wear makeup. For men, no makeup is unmarked. I asked myself what style we women could have adopted that would have been unmarked, like the men's. The answer was none. There is no unmarked woman.
The woman in the teal shirt and jeans in Rosalarian's comic thinks she is unmarked. She judges the other women for 'marking' themselves. But she, too, is marked; she cannot escape the patriarchy cage simply by splitting the difference between slut and prude.
Similarly, OP is comparing Sabrina Carpenter's marked-ness with the way male celebrities are unmarked. OP imagines that Sabrina could base her career on "being a person" if she ditched her slutty pinup style. But do more modest female artists actually get to do that, as a rule? There are a million articles and studies about discrimination against women in the music industry. Plenty of stories exist about the forced sexualization of female artists who actively did not want to be sexualized. But OP isn't digging into any of those: OP is most distressed by the female artists who are vocal about choosing and controlling their own sexual expression. And that, unfortunately, means OP's concerns are 100% aligned with the patriarchy on this issue.
There's a surface-level feministy reason for this, in that if you are distressed about women getting forced to be sexy when they don't want to be sexy, you're afraid that a different woman saying "Actually I really enjoy being sexy and I'm doing it on purpose" is going to provide convenient cover for the victimization of the unwilling.
But that kind of concern has always been a cop-out. If women aren't allowed to say yes to sex and sexiness, then you are not actually advancing the cause of female sexual autonomy. You're just saying that the patriarchal pressure to NOT be a slut is more acceptable to you than the patriarchal pressure to BE a slut.
You have to reject both pressures. The pressure to dress sexy, the pressure to dress modest—they are both the patriarchy trying to control women. Neither is legitimate.
If a woman is less of a person because she's too sexual, the patriarchy is winning. If a woman is less of a person because she's not sexual enough, the patriarchy is winning.
If a woman is less of a person for literally any reason, the patriarchy is winning.
Do not let the patriarchy win!
I need to add because I think this keeps being lost about feminism in the early 2000s of embracing sexuality: men fucking hated it
Because it was not "I am sexy and available to men" it was "I am sexy. I know I am. I know I don't have lower my standards or be grateful for attention or give my attention to anyone who seeks it. You want me. Too bad. I don't want you. I am not doing this for YOU. If I go home alone at the end of the night out that is not my failure. That is YOURS. Because you don't have access to me because I dress a certain way. I like how I look and your attention is worthless to me."
And men knew that and FUCKING HATED IT.
This is when you got pick up artists teaching negging and the rise of incel culture because "easy girls" weren't easy. Because women could and would laugh at them and they felt threatened
The male response was: "why do you look sexy to me if you aren't giving me sex!? That's lying!"
They were furious
So the people who look back at that time and call it "slut feminism" or "bimbo feminism" derisively are narrow minded in my opinion
Was it perfect? No. But slut marches and the like were a thing for a reason. And it did threaten the patriarchy
May I suggest something like
Dead dove: Do not eat "This contains exactly what it says it does."
Olive oil - I taste like olive oil "Not only does this contain what it says it does, it's also done in exactly the way you're thinking of. It's played completely straight. There's no subversions or technicalities here, it's exactly that."
Like. A particularly emphatic "dead dove" that says "not only is there a dove and it is dead, it also looks exactly like you would expect a dead dove to look"
somehow haven't seen anyone point this one out yet??
'the greatest reveal in the history of media was-' no. the greatest reveal in the history of media was in the novel Howl's Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones (1986), wherein after having spent the entire book up to this point in the fantasy land of Ingary, where fairy tales come true, it is revealed that the real reason that Howl is so odd, so strange, so different from everyone else is that he is not, in fact, like everyone else. and this is not because he is a wizard, or a layabout, or heartless--it is because he is Welsh. as in, he is from modern day Wales. as in, he and his pals from Magic World go for a quick trip to visit his family in Wales, circa 1984-6. and suddenly everything about Howl Pendragon aka Howell Jenkins suddenly makes a lot more sense
I don’t know enough about Howl’s Moving Castle to even vaguely guess whether this is true or not.
This is, and I cannot emphasize enough, not only true but a major plot point.
Dust if you must, by Rose Milligan (September 1998)
Dust if you must, but wouldn't it be better
To paint a picture, or write a letter,
Bake a cake, or plant a seed;
Ponder the difference between want and need?
Dust if you must, but there's not much time,
With rivers to swim, and mountains to climb;
Music to hear, and books to read;
Friends to cherish, and life to lead.
Dust if you must, but the world's out there
With the sun in your eyes, and the wind in your hair;
A flutter of snow, a shower of rain,
This day will not come around again.
Dust if you must, but bear in mind,
Old age will come and it's not kind.
And when you go (and go you must)
You, yourself, will make more dust.
Agnes Herczeg - macrame painting
Artist:
Born in the town of Kecskemét, Agnes Herczeg is a talented Hungarian textile artist. She graduated from the Hungarian University of Fine Arts in 1997. While studying, she has learned many traditional handicraft techniques, from embroidery and lace-making to macramé, and weaving.
Creating her works, Agnes uses only with natural materials – tree branches, roots, fruits, seeds, yarns, threads, textiles, which supplement in a single composition.
cis people will say “I found out I’m having a baby girl at my anatomy scan and I’m experiencing gender disappointment” but be mad when you say “who knows? maybe you’ll end up with a son anyway”
they found this post and they’re very very in their feelings about it
Cis people will basically just sag “I’m sexist” and you say “maybe you don’t have to be” and they say “well now I’m gonna be transphobic too”
Addams Family Values
Why aren't we talking about the real reason male college enrollment is dropping? (Celeste Davis, Oct 6 2024)
"White flight is a term that describes how white people move out of neighborhoods when more people of color move in.
White flight is especially common when minority populations become the majority. That neighborhood then declines in value.
Male flight describes a similar phenomenon when large numbers of females enter a profession, group, hobby or industry—the men leave. That industry is then devalued.
Take veterinary school for example:
In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.
By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.
By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%
A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.
But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”
Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.
For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied.
One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition! (…)
Since males had dominated these professions for centuries, you would think they would leave slowly, hesitantly or maybe linger at 40%, 35%, 30%, but that’s not what happens.
Once the tipping point reaches majority female- the men flee. And boy do they flee!
It’s a slippery slope. When the number of women hits 60% the men who are there make a swift exit and other men stop joining.
Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”
Now we’ve reached that 60% point of no return for colleges.
As we’ve seen with teachers, nurses and interior design, once an institution is majority female, the public perception of its value plummets.
Scanning through Reddit and Quora threads, many men seem to be in agreement - college is stupid and unnecessary.
A waste of time and money. You’re much better off going into the trades, a tech boot camp or becoming an entrepreneur. No need for college. (…)
When mostly men went to college? Prestigious. Aspirational. Important.
Now that mostly women go to college? Unnecessary. De-valued. A bad choice. (…)
School is now feminine. College is feminine. And rule #1 if you want to safely navigate this world as a man? Avoid the feminine.
But we don’t seem to want to talk about that."
very good tags from @downwarddnaspiral
literally saw this tweet this morning
behold, the privileging of ignorance.
It's also interesting to look at the way the gender-shift in roles changes how the roles are perceived.
Secretaries are a perfect example. Back in the day, secretary was a prestigious position, usually the right hand of a figure of authority. The term comes from the 1400s, or thereabout, and the fact that high political offices are still referred to as Secretary of Defence and Secretary of State show how important the position was.
There were, of course, women doing the secretarial tasks - for example Marie Maitland transcribed the family folio in the 16th century though skeptical Victorians insisted a woman couldn't have so fair a hand and Dido Belle wrote her uncle's correspondence in the 18th century, which was noted to be unusual for a woman to do such a task - but secretarial duties primarily fell to men.
However, outside governmental roles, as more and more women entered the workforce, especially during and after the World Wars, and were very good at secretarial work, the gender dynamic shifted.
The number of male secretaries diminished rapidly and with it, the respect due. Misogyny coloured how secretaries were treated, no matter how skilled or professional the women in question were, and even now, there are still the stereotypes of the sexy bimbo secretary.
If we get enough women all over the workforce and then push workers' rights far enough that raising a family on a single income becomes viable again, maybe we can create a world where the manliest thing to be is a tradwife.
THE GOOD PLACE Season 1, Episode 4 | Jason Mendoza
going thru old papers means I find things like this
what?