"is the barbie movie feminist?" is similar to "is the black panther movie pro black?" in terms of like silly discourse questions. like probably... kind of. i believe the barbie movie (which i have not seen) probably has some good feminist commentary, it's clear to me that a lot of women are reacting to it in a way that seems to scare men, i think it's safe to say it's good for what it is, and what it is is a big budget toy commercial. it's the first movie in the mattel cinematic universe, which will ultimately be a net negative for the world, but it got women thinking. i'm pragmatic and the fact that some women seem to be having feminist awakenings because of this movie ultimately counts as a win for me, even if it's bittersweet. a big budget barbie movie was in the cards no matter what, i'm happy this is the one we got and sad we live in a world where this is the best we can do.
Hey yeah in the midst of all the hype and the strikes, can we PLEASE fucking talk about this
who else up realizing we weren’t meant to do this alone
imagine you're frolicking in a field, prancing through long grass, singing "falalalala~", occasionally picking a flower. etc, etc. but a guy in the same field is watching you, about 20 paces away. he lowers his opera glasses (which he was using to watch you) and starts clutching his head and screaming with blind rage because of how much you're pissing him off. that's what it's like to be on the internet.
the group chat when i ask whos available to hang out next week
That they even pretended to side with us in the first place is good, though. It means they expect us to win.
There are far right terrorists threatening to kill employees at Target, they removed the Pride section for their safety
And how, exactly, does pulling things from the website make people safer?
No. They caved, and by caving, they actually made employees less safe, because by caving, they told the people who use violence as a lever that it works.
There were other options, things like "the videos you make of you destroying displays or threatening employees are now Exhibit A," and standing behind and in front of their employees, including their queer employees, by pressing charges against people threatening or enacting violence, for a fucking start. Making clear that what these people are doing when they trash displays or threaten employees is criminal and will be treated as criminal is the first, most necessary step. All this has done is told people like Matt Walsh, who is specifically saying that violence is the only language they [meaning queer people and their allies] understand, that threats of violence work, because Target will roll over for them.
I know y'all have dealt with bullies before. Have you ever, ever gotten a bully to leave you alone by giving in?
Because I never have. I've only ever gotten them to fuck off by standing up to them.
And before someone says it:
- I have employees. Right now.
- I worked traditional retail for 20 years, from grocery to big box to cellular to retail banking.
- Our company goes to high-risk events, including Pride events.
- I've been doxxed repeatedly and had "credible threats" to my life over our company. We've had to change our lives to protect ourselves.
- So yes, I do understand the risk, and we do have to engage in this kind of calculus.
Is it fucking bullshit to ask someone to risk their life? Yes. It's especially bullshit when Target pays as little as they do. At least the people going to Pride with us this year will be making $25-27/hr. (Sorry, not hiring right now.)
But caving to bullies does not make their employees safer. All it does is say, "threats and violence work, so you can continue to use them, they will work."
The idea that doing this somehow protected their employees and customers, especially in the long run, is simply wrong.
Once you start looking, you see queer presentism everywhere. It pops up when politicians espouse our “unprecedented” ability to love who we love, and when recent book bans are said to “roll back the clock” on LGBTQ+ rights, implying that clocks tick continually toward progress. It manifests in Oscar Wilde hagiography, which elevates him to the status of singular queer martyr and extrapolates an epochal paradigm from his 1895 trials. It seeps into our everyday speech, in our references to “forbidden love” and our use of the term “Victorian” to imply prudish homophobia. It both stems from and structures the editorial projects that publishers pursue, giving rise to catalogues like the NYRB Classics, where the oldest work tagged LGBTQ+ is Colette’s The Pure and the Impure (1932) — as if nothing queer was written before.
The truth is that there’s a world of queer writing that predates Colette, volumes of manuscript and books that aren’t so much products of historical suppression as they are suppressed by today’s “it’s gotten better” mindset. This is convenient for a culture industry in search of the sui generis and always eager to pat itself on the back for its own enlightenment. But the almost total neglect, outside the academy, of the queer literary archive is a shame, and not only because it propagates factual errors. In limiting our horizons for understanding how our predecessors lived, loved, and wrote, we end up narrowing our own vistas. When we apply the repressive hypothesis, we’re actually repressing ourselves.
Colton Valentine, “Against Queer Presentism | How the Book World Neglects the Archive,” The Drift, October 25, 2022.
Funny how his name is Neil Armstrong when if you think about it, to niel you dont arm strong you strong neil in the strong on the ground strong niel
Kind of a random hill to die on rn but "You'd eat this thing you hate if you got hungry enough" does not set a reasonable expectation of what "hungry enough" means for people with food problems.
Like, are we talking "stomach grumbling" hungry enough, or "can't stand up" hungry enough? Cause personally, I can make myself eat a bit of a pork chop if I'm barfy and shaking and can't see straight anymore, but if it's down to "black out for three days and wake up angry and confused" or "willingly swallow prosciutto", I'm having sleep for dinner. And I know this from experience.
People without food problems don't seem to understand this and it drives me insane. "Hungry enough" is for shit like chewing drywall because the alternative is death or cannibalism.
If I say I can't eat something, It means I can't eat it. It Is Not Edible To Me. It's not even appetizing. It literally does not register as food. You might as well hand me a rubber duck.
And it's frustrating!! Trust me, I wish I wasn't like this, too!! This isn't a choice!! I know it can be rude!! It's embarassing!! It's complicated and annoying and irrational!! That doesn't fix the problem!!
I just wish people didn't treat this sort of thing as "being picky" or lacking willpower or basic manners or something. I can't make myself eat certain foods the way you probably couldn't cut your own fingers off. Does that make sense? It's not just food. Fuck
Not to put you on blast here darlin, but if pinto beans and black beans were exactly the same then why would it matter to you if you switched them? It'd be the same experience, right? Even if you were allergic or had a sensitivity or a nutritional issue?
Also, your daughter in law is a grown adult who is perfectly capable of figuring out for herself what can and cannot go into her body, and if it wasn't important to her, then she wouldn't have told you. If it didn't matter, if it wasn't worth communicating for some reason, she probably would have kept it to herself. She decided instead to communicate with you so that you could meet somewhere in the middle, because she trusted that you would be courteous about it and she knew it would come up in the future- meaning she hopes or expects to continue socializing with you in the future.
Like, I completely understand that not knowing *why* is frustrating, but sometimes people have problems and it's not my job or my business to solve them
Beyond that, too, it may not be that she doesn't like the taste or physically can't eat them. I love red bell peppers, and I can eat them no problem, but the consequence is that I spend the next two days in the bathroom because I can't digest them properly. So it's easier to tell people I can't have them, or I'm allergic, because it saves me trouble in the long run.
My dad's latest fiancée got SO mad at me when I told her I was allergic to red bell peppers at Christmas, complained I was being picky and making stuff up, and tried to force me to eat them. I'm a grown adult and not about to be bullied by a woman like that, so I didn't, and she sulked for two whole days about it.
Don't throw a temper tantrum when people tell you they can't eat something. The only response you should be having is asking if they're allergic and if you need to decontaminate things after touching it. That's it.
But also, *especially* with kids who cannot comprehend "starving to death" or cannot make the connection between the feelings of severe starvation and eating, plenty of them will NEVER eat the bad food, ever. "Hungry enough" does not exist. Its just not a real thing under any circumstances. They end up in hospital. They end up tube fed. They end up traumatised and eating LESS. And they don't understand why they aren't being allowed to eat. They don't understand why everyone wants to make them only eat the bad thing that they can't eat. They will never be hungry enough.
(This is also my warning to parents of ND kids with eating issues, you will be told by proffesionals to starve your child to "fix" them. You will also be held responsible when they are hospitalised from starvation. Just feed them what they want to eat)
It's not "everyone" acting like it's normal. The majority of people know something's wrong they just don't have the tools to fix it. Maybe a plurality don't know that the problem is capitalism, they blame it on something else, but they're still aware there's a problem. "Everyone" is just too exhausted from working 4 jobs, 50 hours a week to scream into the void in their spare time.
guess I gotta pull out this bad boy again huh
we justifiably give Biden a lot of shit but I think "at least 3" is the funniest possible response to some right wing dipshit asking you how many genders there are
wait it gets better
Look alive, we detected a surge of girls nearby.
Girls inbound. Get ready!
Wave 1/10
This post sure as hell became relevant in an unplanned and unforseen way due to the surge of sexbots as of late, huh.
Wave 2/10
stay alert, they’re coming in fast!
Wave 3/10 - They have actually good URLs now, please be careful but also I’m so mad, I just saw “pawpatroleuthanasia” and I am bursting green with envy.
starting all my emails with ‘God preserve my sanity for to this I am reduced’ in honor of my good friend Jonathan Harker
The poll feature really took off because it taps into tumblr's favorite activity: being extremely opinionated about things that don't matter
