This has been the most tumultuous year I’ve had at this school so far. There was so much going on and there were so many high expectations and shitty moments, and I’m almost too scared to try to sum it all up and reflect. I told myself that I would publish a post about the conclusion of my…
So I hope OP doesn’t mind that I’m reblogging this… I’m a fellow soph with a sorta different persepctive. Unlike her, I am walking away from our school.
A lot changed this year. It sucked. I wasn’t happy. It was more than a ‘sophomore slump’ — I wasn’t just disillusioned or concerned about/struggling with my academics, I wanted out for basically all of spring semester and some of fall.
I kinda thought things would work themselves out by the end of the semester. I could apply to a few schools to transfer, and when I got myself through my rough spot I could politely turn down offers of admission and go to Vienna in the fall and everything would be fine. But actually, the more time passed the better this idea seemed. I’m very glad I went to Bryn Mawr, and I think I’m a better woman now than I was when I arrived. But it’s not what I need anymore.
I know what I’m giving up, and I’m certain I’ll miss it very much. But for the first time all year I’m excited about school again. I’m most likely going to Boston University, and I’ll meet lots of new people and learn lots of new things and have lots more opportunities to get some real experience in my field, I think. And I’ll be close to home.
I will carry my lantern for the rest of my life. I’ll light a candle for Step Sings. I’ll come back when I can (May Day 2014, I’m looking at you). And I’ll always be a green class owlet. As the old saying goes, you can take the woman out of the Mawr, but you’ll never get the Mawr out of her.
"No goodbyes, only ‘See ya later.’" Bryn Mawr, you haven’t seen the last of me.
psa: masculinity and femininity are not some spectrum. they are not opposites and do not belong at opposite ends of a pole, so that you lie x place between them.
no man is emasculated and thus effeminate. no woman becomes defeminized and thus masculine.
not only is this a false idea of the gender/sex binary that erases identities and experiences, it is especially harmful to trans*/genderqueer people whose identities are typically more heavily placed on concepts of masculinity and femininity.
how the voices of POC get pitted against each other all the time, and it’s usually done to
affirm some kind of racist/ culturally appropriative act
affirm the idea that POC are a monolith
Like during The Great Bindi Debate on Tumblr, there were so many ppl going ‘but I talked to someone who lives in India and they said it was ok!’. There were even desis from the homeland chiming in to tell us diasporic desis that we’re making too much of it and that they don’t care if white people wear bindis and so neither should we.
Let me be clear: these are not conversations in which white people have any prerogative. The concerns of our activism and identity are ‘family’ conversations that POC have with each other, so stop appropriating the differences in our perspectives to further silence and disenfranchise us.
And secondly, I’m tired of the voices of POC in the homelands being used to discredit diasporic voices. The issue of western privilege is real, and I know that many times POCs in the global north speak over our brothers and sisters in the global south. But, it’s never ok to tell me that my activism is not valid because you it doesn’t affect you. Sure, when I’m in Sri Lanka talking to my friends and reading the news, I don’t care as much about some white girls wearing bindis. I care about issues like the genocide of Tamil folks and the issue of IDPs and resettlement and gender violence at the structural and personal level and shadeism etc. I’m capable of having multiple avenues of activism!
I’m capable of thinking in multiplicity, according to how I’m positioned by social and political forces, according to how I’m connected to the communities I’m immersed in.
So like…can we just broaden this conversation and stop invalidating different forms of POC activism? White supremacy and imperialism are chimerical and they manifest differently according to a host of other factors. Our responses need to be equally diverse and versatile
IDK i’m possibly talking out of my ass here, so check me if you think so
Here is a list of everything I am mad at Bryn Mawr for:
1) Radnor. Dean Rasmussen never so much as sent an email to address that email, why we had to deal with Fox News on our campus, why we had to spend midterms in a shitstorm of uninformed media attention.
2) Haffner. Why close a dorm during a housing shortage AND financial trouble? Literally makes no sense.
3) Dining Services. How is it possible that our food is like, the best college food in the country and we’re not giving enough money to dining services?
4) Study Abroad. So rising juniors are only supposed to study abroad in the fall. So when EVERYONE comes back in the spring, where are they supposed to go? Theoretically, half of the students go in the fall and half go in the spring, then we just switch out the rooms and everyone has a place to sleep.
5) JMac. Everything is so unstable right now and so yes, let’s add MORE instability by losing our president, spending a year with an interim president, and then getting a new real president.
6) Everything about VBM. Are courses online or aren’t they? Why are they some places but not others? Why the EVER-LOVING FUCK can I search for classes from 1992?
I just feel like this place that is my home, that I love so much, is falling the fuck apart and there’s nothing I can do to stop it.
Why are “naturally thin” and “born with a fast metabolism” totally acceptable explanations for weight, but “naturally fat” and “born with a slow metabolism” seen as “excuses” for “laziness/irresponsibility/greediness”?
Male privilege is oversexualizing a normal part of a woman’s body to the point where she is punished for wearing a pair of shorts at school. They are legs and they get me where I need to go. I don’t “display” them for your enjoyment, I just made a mistake by assuming that partially exposing an appropriate part of my body on an 80 degree day wouldn’t land me in detention.
You seem to be forgetting that demisexual additionally means a person who experiences themself as asexual most of the time and experiences sexual attraction only to people they’ve known for a long time, so no, this would not “theoretically apply to anyone.” Demisexuality can mean that you don’t know if you’ll ever be sexually attracted to your partner.
Sexual attraction is not the same as willingness to engage in sexual behavior. Sexual attraction is that thing that makes it occur to you, without prompting or outside influence, that you might want to involve sexual activity in a relationship. Attraction is not behavior. If you’d spent any amount of time talking to actual demisexual people, you’d know that.
Doyourresearch before trying to “debunk” anything. Stop trying to philosophize away people’s lived experiences of their own sexualities.
p.s. Although it can accompany love, sexual attraction is also not love. Thanks for implying that I’m incapable of experiencing the strongest human emotions simply because I don’t experience sexual attraction!
I can tell that you’re a person that I can have an honest discussion with. Aside from that complete misinterpretation of what I said at the bottom, you seem to have your head on straight. I admire that.
However, there are a few points that I would like to clarify.
I am, believe it or not, completely willing to accept demisexuality as an extension of the asexual umbrella. The thing is, though, what specifically separates the two? Are asexuals not allowed to find people attractive at all? Or is it only the demisexuals that are allowed to possibly experience sexual attraction after an arbitrary period of time? How long is this time? What is the nature of the attraction as opposed to a non-asexual person?
How can you say that attraction is not a behavior? No, all right, it’s not an interpersonal behavior, but it is a behavior. It has its triggers, its stimulus, and can be reinforced positively or negatively. Hence my hyperbolic (i.e. completely off-the-wall for the sake of arguing a point) comparison of the fetishist. He literally cannot achieve that level of arousal without certain conditions being met. And as far as I know, that is both deviant as well as maladaptive on its own.
Your research is interesting, but — and you’ll have to forgive me for this — I feel as though a forum, a blog, and a specious article are not enough to convince me. A peer-reviewed article would be nice to have.
Also, I am aware that I may have seen heavy-handed with my discounting of demisexuality. But just like homeopathy, aromatherapy, fortune-telling, and religious devotion, I am understandably concerned about the clarity and intellectual honesty of what it means for people as a whole. And I cannot back it up with any rigor without a systemic understanding of its causation, methodology, phylogeny, and development.
THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING. WE HAVE A ZEALOUS ATHEISTIC PSYCH OR SOC OR SOME OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCE MAJOR ON OUR HANDS.
Oh was I too angry and irrational to have an ‘honest discussion’ with? Then please explain to me how you intend to debunk the points I made in opposition-whether you like my tone or not. Also, A+ for shutting down a potential conversation just because you were too offended by my response to deal with the content…UNLIKE ME.
And, clarifications (I’m going to start quoting you, forgive the length):
“I am, believe it or not, completely willing to accept demisexuality as an extension of the asexual umbrella.” That’s great bro, then why are you saying it doesn’t exist as an actual orientation and is inherently sex negative?
“The thing is, though, what specifically separates the two? Are asexuals not allowed to find people attractive at all?” Point one, asexuals are allowed to do anything that doesn’t hurt other people. People can ID as ace whether they meet the strict definition ‘does not experience sexual attraction to other people’ or not. However, that definition does mean that demisexuals are not asexual, since they sometimes can experience sexual attraction. That’s why they’re part of the grey-asexual spectrum. Since grey-asexuals experience sexual attraction so rarely that they are more like asexuals than consexuals, sexual orientation wise, and experience many of the problems that asexuals do for their orientation. “Or is it only the demisexuals that are allowed to possibly experience sexual attraction after an arbitrary period of time? How long is this time? What is the nature of the attraction as opposed to a non-asexual person?” Time isn’t a factor. Emotional closeness is. This is going to be subjective for each and every relationship each and every demisexual person is in, so your attempt to get a generalization is obnoxious and seems like an attempt to grab at a strawman to knock down.
‘How can you say that attraction is not a behavior? No, all right, it’s not an interpersonal behavior, but it is a behavior. It has its triggers, its stimulus, and can be reinforced positively or negatively. Like I said, OH DEAR GOD AN EFFING SOCIAL SCIENCES MAJOR. Fun fact! We’re using different definitions of behavior than the one you had to learn for your program of study! Yes, learn, in a classroom or from a book, since the understanding you had of the word ‘behavior’ before you learned it was nothing like ‘requires triggers and stimuli and can be reinforced.’ But fine, asshole. Let’s go with “conscious behavior” or “controlled behavior” or “decided upon behavior” and have that mean ways in which a person chooses to behave (for instance: you can choose to have sex or choose not to have sex but cannot choose who you are sexually attracted to because that is part of your sexual orientation) so you can quit getting your god damn knickers in a twist over incorrect definitions. ‘Hence my hyperbolic (i.e. completely off-the-wall for the sake of arguing a point) comparison of the fetishist. He literally cannot achieve that level of arousal without certain conditions being met. And as far as I know, that is both deviant as well as maladaptive on its own.’ Again, your comparison of someone being attracted sexually to another human to a fetish is degrading. Sexual attraction is NOT THE SAME as sexual arousal. Sexual attraction is the impulse to have sex directed at a specific, concrete person or group of people. Sexual arousal is the result of hormones in the body and may or may not present at times when experiencing sexual attraction or sexual stimulation, unless you want to tell me that you’re sexually attracted to something every time you wake up aroused. And finally MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT DEVIANT OR MALADAPTIVE AND IT IS SO SO SO SO SO SO SO ASSHOLE-Y AND FULL OF OPPRESSIVE HETERONORMATIVITY THAT YOU THINK IT IS OKAY TO SAY THAT ABOUT SOMETHING YOU’RE EXPRESSLY COMPARING MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION TO.
‘Your research is interesting, but — and you’ll have to forgive me for this — I feel as though a forum, a blog, and a specious article are not enough to convince me. A peer-reviewed article would be nice to have.’ You realize that asexuality has only been in the public eye (as much as it has been, good lord) for about a decade right? THE RESEARCH IS BEING WORKED ON. DEMANDING MORE THAN EXISTS RIGHT NOW IS PURE DOUCHECANOE-ERY. IN THE MEANTIME, FUCKING LISTEN TO ASEXUALS AND DEMISEXUALS AND OTHER GREY- ASEXUALS SINCE THAT’S HOW THE RESEARCH IS BEING CONDUCTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU ENTITLED PIECE OF SHIT.
‘Also, I am aware that I may have seen heavy-handed with my discounting of demisexuality. But just like homeopathy, aromatherapy, fortune-telling, and religious devotion, I am understandably concerned about the clarity and intellectual honesty of what it means for people as a whole. And I cannot back it up with any rigor without a systemic understanding of its causation, methodology, phylogeny, and development.’
Youuuuu are an assholeeeeee. That’s literally the only thing I can make out of this last paragraph.
1. There is such a thing as a “real” woman and she is defined by “having curves,” which is not to be confused with “being fat,” and if you fall too far outside of that particular bell curve, you do not count as a “real” woman.
2. There is something inherently wrong with you if you have slept with a certain number of people, and it must be the result of some former trauma or unfinished business you have.
3. There is something inherently wrong with you if you are insisting on remaining a virgin until marriage, or indefinitely, and it is something that can be rectified with “the right man.”
4. Bisexual women are simply “going through a phase” or “having a little fun,” and are doing it mostly for the attention of the men they are more attracted to.
5. There is a direct correlation between the kind of clothes you wear and the amount of respect you deserve.
6. Men are entitled to sex with you after a certain amount of nice gestures, and if you remain uninterested after the right combination of activities and words, you are responsible for his unhappiness for being a cold bitch.
7. You are “supposed to” enjoy and universally support any number of female artists and creators simply because she is female, and not because you actually identify with her work in any way.
8. There is a certain amount of your worth as a person — and it’s significant — which is tied up in your relationship status.
9. You owe strange men on the street who call out to you and make you feel uncomfortable to smile at them and cheerfully dismiss their advances.
10. If you don’t smile, and you don’t make yourself as amicable as possible while getting away, you are guilty of being a frigid bitch.
11. If you are too friendly, you’re leading them on.
12. The vast majority of your value in dating someone is how good-looking you are. The other qualities you may or may not possess are rendered largely unimportant in the face of your physical beauty.
13. If you don’t look like a photoshopped image of a model in a magazine, there is something inherently wrong with you, and not with the image.
14. If you spend enough money on beauty products, clothes, and haircuts, you will become as beautiful (and therefore as worthy) as said women in the magazines.
15. There is a “correct” course of action to take as a woman when you are in an abusive relationship, and if you don’t follow it to the letter, you are deserving of shame and mockery for not presenting a good example for other women.
16. It is every woman’s job to be a model of some kind for other women in her life.
17. If one woman acts a certain way, or engages in a certain behavior, she is a reflection on all women and not just herself and her personal choices.
18. There are certain things that women should inherently want out of life, such as marriage and having children, and if you do not want those things there is something defective about you.
19. As a woman, the question you should be asking yourself as you enter your career is unquestionably “How do I have it all?” The underlying assumption is always that you want both a family life and a career, lest you be considered lazy or immature on either front.
20. There are certain choices we can make in life which are inherently more feminist than others, such as choosing to delay family life in order to have a high-powered career.
21. Sex work is something dirty and shameful, and being an educated, hard-working, good person and being a sex worker are mutually exclusive.
22. There is a way to date and have sex and meet people which is more moral and respectable than another.
23. Your sexuality should always be someone else’s business, and other people should get a say in the control you have over your own body.
24. If you are a take-charge person who is hard-working and demanding of others the way many men who are deeply respected in business might be, you are a bitch. And that is that.
Women are expected (celebrities are no exception) to smile, look pretty, and generally be a ray of sunshine in everyone’s lives. When someone as famous as Stewart doesn’t, the whole world freaks out.
If women are not smiling and happy, then they are probably whiny, difficult, a bitch, or PMSing–or so the world and media seems to tell us. Why can’t Stewart have a blank expression? Last time we checked she’s a very popular movie star and very in-demand, which must be stressful and not as much fun as everyone would think.
Plus, why fake a smile when you know every single person taking your picture is practically demanding a smile, while simultaneously judging every single aspect of your outfit? Not to mention that even if you do smile and then suffer some sort of unfortunate wardrobe accident (nip slip, crotch shot, etc), that they will viciously turn on you in a second?
Stewart also gets a lot of negative comments about her apparent lack of glamour or style and infamously wearing flats or sneakers when she “should” be wearing platform pumps.
This also bucks the gender expectation that women should willingly and happily physically suffer in order to look good (which she did big time, when presenting an award Sunday night). Stewart tends to throw that out the window, wearing Converse with haute couture as she pleases, and why not? What’s wrong with comfort and sticking to your guns instead of being pretty eye or arm candy?
Kristen Stewart, it took us a while to get here and we apologize for the delay, but we salute you and all your surprisingly subversive acts of independence and dare we say it–feminism.
“Of the innumerable obvious reasons to be disappointed about this bullshit, at the forefront are the chances these universities had to start meaningful dialogues on their campus, but didn’t take. The useless and victim-blaming tactics they’ve chosen instead have been approved by university power structures. It’s too late to take any of them back. What the fuck is going on? Well, a serious gap between acknowledgment and real understanding, and a corresponding gap between what is done and what needs to be done on campuses nationwide.”—Carmen via Autostraddle — How Do We Make Sense of This? Breaking Down Our Campus Rape Problem (via autostraddle)
How is this even a thing? I’m a dude. I get it. Girls can be scary. They look just like humans, but they make Weird Things happen in your pants-area. It must be magic. They are the Gargamels to your dick’s whatever-Smurf-your-dick-is.
(Sidenote: the makers of The Smurfs meant for each Smurf to represent a different kind of dick. There are 99 dick archetypes. Mine’s Vanity Smurf because it’s so god damned beautiful. Yours might be Baby Smurf because it’s so tiny or Fakir Smurf because it’s racist as hell.)
Actually, none of that is true. Girls are normal humans, and I’m pretty sure Smurfs aren’t dicks, though the hats are suspicious. The problem is that when you see a girl your body goes all Breaking Bad and starts manufacturing chemicals that Jack You Up. That’s scary. I know. I overdosed on PCP once.
Before I launch into this I need to say that if you’re a high school kid, and you’re getting “friend zoned,” I do not blame you for being an idiot. You’re going through a lot of bullshit right now, and your body is more like season 4 of Breaking Bad where for a grown man it’s more like season 1 or 2. But read this article and become wiser than your fellow dweebs. Stop fearing girls as capricious and devastating forces of nature and start seeing them as people who are EXACTLY LIKE YOU except with different pants-parts and, in many cases, different shirt-parts.
If you’re a grown man (read: 19 or older, and I’m cutting the 18 year olds a fucking break here) and you get “friendzoned,” then the following words are for you, Friendzone.
Stop it. How is this even happening? What are the events that are occurring? This is what I imagine:
You become attracted to a woman.
You are friendly to that woman in the hopes she will show you her vagina.
She mistakes your friendliness for friendliness and befriends you, neglecting to show you her vagina.
You act like a butthurt little asswipe, forever placing yourself firmly outside of the circle on the Venn diagram of dudes she will ever show her vagina to.
You complain about it on the internet, and 1000 other maladjusted bro-dudes go, “I know that feel,” and you are validated in your misogyny.
We’ll call that Scenario 1 because there is a second scenario I imagine where “friendzoning” may occur. We will refer to this as Scenario B. (Did that throw you off, Friendzone? Keep on your toes. I am the ninja master in your training regimen to stop being a douche bag.)
You become attracted to a woman.
You befriend her in a passive-aggressive, it’s-us-against-the-world kind of way.
She tolerates that because she’s too nice to tell you, “fuck off, you creep.”
She dates an actual interesting guy with an actual personality.
They break up, and she hurts.
You offer your shoulder to cry on.
She cries on your shoulder.
She dates another interesting guy.
You go, “What the fuck? You cried on my shoulder! Show me your vagina!”
She reacts something like, “I thought we were friends, you creepy-ass, fucking creep!”
You tell the internet you’ve been friendzoned.
The internet validates your misogyny.
So, what’s wrong? You’re a nice guy, right? Why aren’t these Stupid Whores showing you their vaginas? Probably because you’re too nice. You should be a douche bag like that guy she dated who had interests besides pretending to be her friend while simultaneously trying to eye-laser her pants off. Well, good news: you ARE a douche bag!
Consider something for me. Imagine that I, an incredibly good-looking, nice, eligible man, was walking into a shop ahead of you. As I reach the door I stop to look behind me, and I see you there only a few paces away. So I wait and hold the door. Maybe you say something like, “Thanks, bro. That was really nice.”
To which I respond, “Yeah, it was. Now you know what you have to do, right?” And I take my dick out.
Would that be uncomfortable for you? Would it be unpleasant for you to live in a world where, if a man was nice to you, it meant he expected you to pleasure him sexually? Guess what! That’s uncomfortable for women, too. Isn’t that weird? It’s almost like they’re the same kind of person you are. WEIRD!
No, actually. It’s not weird. It turns out they are the same kind of person you are, and having unwanted dicks around is as horrifying to them as it is to you. So, stop. Stop it with your unwanted dick.
Here’s the hard truth, Friendzone. You’re not a nice guy. You are a gutless, pathetic, sad, horny little worm who’s too afraid of rejection to just tell a woman how you really feel. Your anger when she doesn’t psychically glean your unspoken desires and automatically reciprocate them is actually just you externalizing the disgust you feel for your own cowardice. You think pretending to be friends with a woman will get her to have sex with you because women are sex-objects to you. You can’t imagine a non-sexual friendship with a woman being rewarding in any way because you don’t think of them as whole, real people. It doesn’t occur to her to date you either because your pandering comes of as unchallenging and uninteresting or because your creepiness is obvious and unnerving.
How can you stop being such a douche bag? Well, I suggest forming a friendship with a woman. You’re going to need to find one who can put up with a lot of bullshit, because that’s all you’ve really got to offer at this early stage. A good indicator is if she’s been married a long time or has raised children. Invest time and energy in this relationship WITHOUT thinking about your constant loneliness-boner. Once you have internalized the knowledge that your new friend has thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, AND breasts, take a look around you. Look at the world. Look at all of the people with breasts. Those people are just like her, just like your friend. They, too, have thoughts, feelings, hopes, and dreams. Even the ones you want to fuck. Isn’t the world magical?
Here’s my last advice, Friendzone. People, men and women both, are complex, emotional creatures, and virtually all of them are horny. If you’re honest with yourself and honest with them you will form trusting, open connections with a large network of humans. Those people are called friends. You will be in many friend zones. You will be a better person. Someone will fuck you. Trust me.
“The thing about patriarchy is that individual men, gay and straight, are often really wonderful people who you love deeply, but they have internalized some really poisonous shit. So every once in a while they say or do something that really shakes you because you’re no longer totally certain they see you as a human being, and you feel totally disempowered to explain that to them.”—
If feminists want to sit around and complain that they should have the right to kill their fetus *unborn baby*, that’s fine. But they should at least have the courage to be honest about what right they’re fighting for.
If you want the right to kill your child, just say it.
what have you done today to prevent abortions? Did you advocate for better reproductive education in schools, did you encourage your lawmakers to pass laws that make it easier for people to get subsidized reproductive healthcare? Did you donate your time or money to organizations that help out soon-to-be-parents who can’t afford to pay for their hospital visits, for baby clothes, for weeks or months off work during pregnancy? Did you advocate that the federal minimum wage be raised so that people don’t have to choose between having another kid and feeding the rest? Did you do anything that doesn’t involve passively harping at people for something that’s always going to happen whether or not the government realizes it should be a right?
Or is this all you did?
“Let’s call it what it is” is how you titled this. Let’s call it pro-birth.
“But I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, and why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of what pro-life is.” -Sister Joan Chittister
You’re not a cultural warrior, you’re a child who needs to realize the reasons people have abortions in the first place. It’s not because they’re “sitting around complaining for the right to kill their children.” Grow up.
some sources to look into on looking to other countries for ways to lower teen pregnancy as well as abortion rates without stigmatizing anything or banning abortion:x,y, z
The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that even when you are the youngest person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award, many people will use the occasion not to hold you up for all of the amazing things you obviously are, but to tear you down for the ways you don’t look like them, the ways your name isn’t their kind of right, the ways you don’t remind them of themselves, the ways you are not blonde or blue-eyed, as if those things could possibly matter when set against the otherwordly talent and beauty and brilliance you possess.
The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that you come into it already expected to be less than you almost certainly are, the genius and radiant darkness you possess already set up to be overlooked, dismissed or erased by almost everyone you will ever meet.
The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that even when you are everything, some people will want you to be nothing. They will look at you through the nothing-colored glasses they will put on every time you enter a room. And the bigness of you, the outstandingness, the giftedness, will be invisible to them.
The thing about being a little black girl in the world who is already, at nine years old, confident enough to demand that lazy, disrespectful reporters call you by your name, is that most people will not understand the amount of comfort in one’s own skin it takes to do that, will not be able to grasp the sheer fierceness of it, the boldness, the certainty, the love for yourself, and will not be blown away at seeing you do it, though they should be.
The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that your right to be a child, to be small and innocent and protected, will be ignored and you will be seen as a tiny adult, a tiny black adult, and as such will be susceptible to all the offenses that people two and three and four times your age are expected to endure.
then I’m not generalizing the whole of a group’s character based upon the actions of one individual, in a markedly negative fashion.
I’m sorry, did that make you uncomfortable as a man?
Because it makes me uncomfortable, as a woman, when people say
“[insert name of female comedian] is proof that women can be funny.”
and yet anytime some woman becomes a big name in comedy at least one review says that exact same thing. Every single time. Like it’s so amazing that women can be, and are, funny. Yet no one says that about a breakout male comedian. You know why? Because it’s an accepted ‘fact’ that men are naturally funnier than women. So if it’s acceptable to hold up a individual woman as an example of someone who is outside to ‘norms’ of men being the funnier gender, then it absolutely acceptable to hold up an example of man being outside that accepted ‘norm’.
It is so ridiculous that male-right idiots hold up examples of individual level ‘oppression’ without even acknowledging or realizing that women face the same and worse on an institutional level every day.
Can I just say I’m only really capable of short snarky answers and this person articulated what I was trying to say very well?
Listen up, Tumblr. There are some cold hard facts about being poor that you need to know before you try to talk to me or my family or any other poor person about anything involving money, food, jobs, housing or…
I agree and sympathize with all of this, but it does NOT cost more to eat healthily. It costs more to be lazy. The cheap foods you’re eating are probably crap that is easy to prepare. Take some time to cook your meals and you can save plenty of money. Dry goods like rice, pasta, and beans are usually VERY inexpensive. Ground beef isn’t expensive and boneless chicken breast can be bought frozen in bulk for very cheap. Eat fruits and veggies seasonally and stick to store brands. Make slightly larger portions for dinner and bring leftovers to work for lunch to avoid paying for something that you know costs more than it’s worth.
Kindly go fuck yourself, and with enthusiasm.
FUCK YOU for even DARING to invoke the “lazy poor person” trope.
Fuck you for thinking eating beans and pasta is a healthy fucking diet. A healthy diet for most people consists of lean meat (expensive) fresh vegetables (expensive, and they spoil faster than frozen or canned, which means you waste fucking money), whole grains (much more expensive than refined white pasta and white rice), and particular kinds of fats and oils, which - you guessed it - are more expensive the healthier they are. Fish and olive oil cost a lot of fucking money.
I generally can’t afford ground beef. And the fact that you even THINK of mentioning boneless chicken breast tells me you have no fucking business even opening your pretentious fucking mouth about issues of poverty.
Come back when you’ve come home from working twelve hours and you have a migraine and three kids to feed. Then you can fucking tell me about how poor people are “lazy” if they can’t fucking cook a gourmet meal from scratch.
Until then, FUCK OFF AND NEVER SPEAK AGAIN.
How about you chill and realize I was not being pretentious and was just making a well intentioned suggestion. You don’t know me, how I live, or what has worked for me, so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t lash out at a stranger on the internet.
I’m not suggesting a “gourmet meal”. I’m suggesting very inexpensive staple foods that, while they may not be awesome, they’ll keep you alive and well fed while maintaining better health when done correctly. Much more so than a cheap box of mac and cheese or frozen “health foods” that cost an arm and a leg, or organic stuff that isn’t automatically synonymous with health. I should have included that I understand people don’t have time, but taking a day you do have some free time and don’t feel like doodoo and making some foods like soups to store/freeze for later CAN and DOES save money.
I’m sorry if your offended at my good natured comment. I’m broke and struggling to pay for medications I need and I’ve never felt like I’ve wasted money on food unless I bought junk or went out. Chill.
DO NOT TELL ME HOW TO FEEL. DO NOT TELL ME OR ANYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE. GO. FUCK. YOURSELF. HARD.
When someone’s talking about their lived experience and you try to tell them that they’re wrong and if they and people like them were smarter/less lazy they’d realize how to be better and right you’re not “making a well intentioned suggestion,” you’re silencing like a vicious motherfucker. And it’s all the more vicious because you’re doing it the voice of class authority, using the terms directed against lower class people of color and whites, using the self-righteous tone they hear all the goddamn time while they’re being hurt. Out of the mouths of the people hurting them. A voice that’s violent but doesn’t have to acknowledge its violence because the people who know its violence aren’t considered worthy witnesses to their own experience. And round and round it goes.
It really doesn’t matter what your own financial situation and class background is if you’re using those arguments and that voice. It’s harmful.
I eat like you describe, except without meat. You’re right, it is cheap, and it is healthy.
You know what else it is? Time-consuming and pretty darned privileged. I can eat this way because I have transportation and access to a variety of stores carrying higher-end ingredients. I know that grocery stores in poorer areas have less of a selection of the food you’re talking about, because I have visited them. I have a kitchen and the money to stock it with equipment like a crock pot and a food processor and specialized utensils. I have money to buy spices. Beans, rice and pasta taste pretty bland without those.
Above all, I have time and a flexible schedule. I can spend two hours at home cooking beans or cooking applesauce, because not only do I have free time, I have so much free time that two hours isn’t a great sacrifice. I have this free time because I’m not working 60 hours a week trying to keep up with my rent, or my medical bills, or my tuition.
I should also note that what’s “cheap” to me, a student who’s otherwise solidly middle-class, isn’t necessarily what’s “cheap” to a single mom working two minimum-wage jobs trying to make ends meet, or an elderly man on Social Security. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not, because one of the other reasons I can eat so cheaply is because I have enough liquid money to buy large quantities of food at one time. People poorer than me don’t necessarily have that luxury.
“I don’t think it’s terribly controversial to note that women, from a young age, are required to consider the reality of the opposite gender’s consciousness in a way that men aren’t. This isn’t to say that women don’t often misunderstand, mistreat, and stereotype men, both in literature and in life. But on a basic level, functioning in society requires that women register that men are fully conscious; it is not really possible for a woman to throw up her hands and write men off as eternally unknowable space aliens — and even if she says she has, she cannot really behave as though she has. Every element of her life — from reading books about boys and men to writing papers about the motivations of male characters to being attentive to her own safety to navigating most any institutional or professional or economic sphere — demands an ironclad familiarity with, and belief in, the idea that men really are fully human entities. And no matter how many men come to the same conclusions about women, the structure of society simply does not demand so strenuously that they do so. If you didn’t really deep down believe that women were, in general, exactly as conscious as you, you could probably still get by in life. You could probably still get a book deal. You could probably still get elected to office.”—Jennifer duBois, Writing Across Gender (via florida-uterati)
Last night I thought I kissed the loneliness from out your belly button. I thought I did, but later you sat up, all bones and restless hands, and told me that there is a knot in your body that I cannot undo.
I never know what to say to these things. “It’s okay.” “Come back to bed.” “Please don’t go away again.”
Sometimes you are gone for days at a time and it is all I can do not to call the police, file a missing person’s report, even though you are right there, still sleeping next to me in bed. But your eyes are like an empty house in winter: lights left on to scare away intruders.
Except in this case I am the intruder and you are already locked up so tight that no one could possibly jimmy their way in.
Last night I thought I gave you a reason not to be so sad when I held your body like a high note and we both trembled from the effort.
Some people, though, are sad against all reason, all sensibility, all love. I know better now. I know what to say to the things you admit to me in the dark, all bones and restless hands.
“It’s okay.” “You can stay in bed.” “Please come back to me again.”
if you don’t think history is amusing then you’re wrong because one time 3 different guys declared themselves pope all at once and they all excommunicated each other and it was basically the funniest shit ever
what about that time the Lichtenstein army sent 80 men to Italy to fight and came back with 81
what about the time when a guy tried to assassinate the archduke, failed, and threw himself into a 2 inch deep river in a suicide attempt
what about that time a U.S. Senator was beaten bloody with a cane on the Senate floor by a fellow U.S. Senator because he didn’t like an anti-slavery speech the dude gave two days earlier.
what about the time england picked a fight with spain over one guy’s chopped-off ear
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”