happy magnus thoughts bc he’s a Big Beautiful Boy and i love him
starts sing-alongs on every single roadtrip. reactions from fellow travellers vary but what’s important is that magnus has a good time
he keeps all the soulwood fingers merle loses for talking shit about pan and carves them into cute lil figurines to give away as presents (usually with a really lame hand pun that people are either confused or horrified by) (the director puts hers in a drawer and tries not to think about it too much)
hangs out with the void fish a lot bc it’s just. very calming for him. and also the fish socialisation is really good for steven. carving figurines out of merle’s fingers with the void fish+steven and optional johan soundtrack is the no.1 magnus burnsides method of relaxing
on the flip side of that he stress exercises and pretty much everyone at b.o.b has sat on his back while he does push-ups at some point or another. taako usually levitates just above him bc he doesn’t want to sit on magnus’ back bc that’s sweaty and gross but it’s the thought that counts
chronic brain freeze/burnt tongue bc he just. never learns
will always stop to pet dogs when he sees them. if they’re in the middle of a crisis he will settle for scratching it behind the ears and telling them he loves them before moving on but otherwise it is Cuddle Time
It’s not Freshers’ Week yet - so not everyone has arrived. I’ve met lots of lovely people already - my housemates are all really friendly too, which is great. I’m the youngest - they’re all DPhil* students and I’m a masters student. The neighbouring houses also house a mix of grads, and I’ve enjoyed pretty much all the activities I’ve been to so far - teas, pub trips and a games night. One of my housemates organised another evening of board games, and that was lovely.
For the most part I’ve found socialising okay - I struggle more at lunch, because I’ve often done a morning’s academic work and am not quite ready for talking, and I find talking while eating quite difficult. Who you end up next to is often luck of the queue! Usually I’m a listener, but it becomes hard when lots of the people you’re talking to are of a similar temperament - you can’t rely on them to keep talking! After one particularly bad lunch I had to go back to my room to recover (i.e. sulk and drink tea and eat biscuits). I met someone I already know (from the James Joyce Summer School, actually, who’s starting at another college) in the evening for a few drinks, and I cheered up a lot after that: I am not a social failure doomed to be eaten by an Alsatian (as Bridget Jones puts it). The drinks helped: I then went to the college games night and had a great time.
I’ve met a lot of scientists. They always ask about my recreational reading habits, and I always end up being blunt and saying that I’m not that big on recreational reading because reading is my job, and why would I do that when I could just watch Poldark or something. I think I’m still hung-up on my period of not-reading, and so am still a bit defensive: “not everything has to be about reading, omg!”. There aren’t too many English grad students at Univ, apparently, but I’ll see once everyone’s turned up.
A lot of the people are definitely older feeling too: it’s all long term relationships and long term projects. I suppose it’s because they know where they’ll be in a year’s time (at least for DPhil freshers), whereas I don’t. It can feel a little intimidating, but it’s just because that sort of stuff is new to me. I still like the idea of drinking lots and going clubbing and fancy dress - and a lot of them seem past that. A couple of people have been at Oxford before, but not many at all - so I was right in my guess that it wouldn’t be too common. (Although I am by no means a rarity either).
I’m taking the day off academic work today, to go back to London and pick up the rest of my things (my formal clothes, my new suit!). I’ll start work fresh on Thursday afternoon, once I’ve got myself sorted.
*DPhil - i.e. a PhD. Oxford just calls it something else, for some reason.
i stopped watching mlp during the s5 hiatus because i got impatient and id discoverde more special interests at that point whuich made me hyperfocus on them and not on mpl. but ive came to realise all the bad, problemmatic bronies left the fandom after the hype and really all thats left is kids and ppl with age regression problems, which i am more comforttable with socialising with. im a lot more comfrtable to contribute art and stuff to the fandom now.
I saw a little girl today who was absolutely riveted by the life in the rotting seaweed around the harbour. I love seeing these little moments, because it takes me back to some of my first experiences as a ‘young naturalist’ of sorts.
I was nearby, photographing and identifying pollinators: I was just about to go over and ask her what she had found…
Both of us had our moments shattered, however, as her mother started screaming at her about getting her clothes dirty. Unfortunately, I also have memories of moments like these, where the female obligation to be decorative trumped my right to be fascinated and curious about the world around me.
She immediately started crying when he parents took her by the arm and led her away.
For those of you who are parents or caregivers, think of what is means to prioritise a child’s appearance over her learning and interests. It’s not fair to socialise girls this way: it breeds self-consciousness, insecurity, and I’m absolutely sure has a direct link to why girls and women are under-represented in the sciences.
Psychologists often find that parents treat baby girls and boys differently, despite an absence of any discernible differences in the babies’ behavior or abilities. One study, for example, found that mothers conversed and interacted more with girl babies and young toddlers, even when they were as young as six months old. This was despite the fact that boys were no less responsive to their mother’s speech and were no more likely to leave their mother’s side. As the authors suggest, this may help girls learn the higher level of social interaction expected of them, and boys the greater independence. Mothers are also more sensitive to changes in facial expressions of happiness when an unfamiliar six-month-old baby is labeled as a girl rather than a boy, suggesting that their gendered expectations affect their perception of babies’ emotions. Gendered expectations also seem to bias mothers’ perception of their infants’ physical abilities. Mothers were shown an adjustable sloping walkway, and asked to estimate the steepness of slope their crawling eleven-month-old child could manage and would attempt. Girls and boys differed in neither crawling ability nor risk taking when it came to testing them on the walkway. But mothers underestimated girls and overestimated boys–both in crawling ability and crawling attempts–meaning that in the real world they might often wrongly think their daughters incapable of performing or attempting some motor feats, and equally erroneously think their sons capable of others. As infants reach the toddler and preschool years, researchers find that mothers talk more to girls than to boys, and that they talk about emotions differently to the two sexes–and in a way that’s consistent with (and sometimes helps to create the truth of) the stereotyped belief that females are the emotion experts.
Cordelia Fine, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference
The responses are mixed, but one thing I can’t help but laugh at is the consistency of people telling me I’m out of touch, and “shaming parents” who are merely worried about laundry.
I did my own laundry and my brother’s as soon as I could work the machine; I do all the laundry for four people every day; I’ve done my dad’s laundry, and my father-in-law’s laundry (I’m washing his socks right now!); the amount of other people’s laundry I’ve done in my 24 years on this planet is staggering.
I grew up in a home where doing household chores was expected of me and my sister, but not of my brother. Basically, I’m not out of touch when it comes to cleaning up other people’s messes, while being chastised if I made any: it’s also a part of how I was socialised into a feminine role.
All I’m saying is: let little girls play outside, give girls appropriate clothing for spending time outdoors, and let little girls get dirty. You can always wash clothes, but learning is a constant process, and you are putting her progress behind when you limit how much she can interact with her world.
I have a lot of people consistently harrassing me on this blog about this so called ‘trans hate speech’, and asking me why trans activism is an issue for radical feminism. So, I’m going to answer it in detail and I will refer each and every one of you back to this post so I don’t have to waste my fucking time educating you about it 24/7.
First and foremostly, Radical Feminism is defined as 'a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women’.
You will hear about the term 'patriarchy’ a lot, and radical feminists believe we live in a patriarchal society, which is defined as 'a male-dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships’. [x]
Now males and females are different through their hormones, chromosones, and anatomy [x]. They are factual, biological differences and they matter. In saying that, however, there is no 'brain sex’. If you read 'Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences’ by Cordelia Fine, you will find that patriarchy shapes our gender, but naturally there is no 'gendered’ difference between males and females besides hormones, chromosones and anatomy.
“We learn gender identities and expected gender roles much the same way we attained speech” [x] Males are socialised to become 'superior’ to women, because of patriarchy (see above). Now a woman is defined as a 'adult human female’. Thus trans women are trans women, because they are not female.They benefited from male socialisation, and the oppression they face as trans women directly comes from patriarchy - like the oppression onto females is. However, telling females they are 'misogynists’ for telling you facts like this is a paradox - how can a woman (grown adult human female) be a misogynist?
Body dysmorphic dysphoria is real. IT is feeling like living in your current body is a dystopia, and to be happy you need to change things about it. If a male experiences BDD surrounding genitals, breasts, or any other trigger areas that they want to replicate a female’s, then that’s fine. If they want to identify as a woman because of simplicities sake, that’s fine too. Now, why is the 'trans women’ WITHOUT body dysphoria offensive to women? Well 'gender’ or 'sex’ dysphoria is not real. Why, you say? Well like I’ve stated above, gender is socially constructed and oppresses women. Sex (male and female) is real and biological, but the only differences are hormones, chromosones and anatomy. So, a male with 'gender’ or 'sex’ dysphoria is blatantly suggesting that women are the stereotypes that patriarchy has assigned to them. To say that means to support the inferiority of women, to support patriarchal socialisation, and to imply that women are somehow innately 'feminine’. That’s exactly what you’re suggesting. Because how else would you know what it’s like to be a woman? If you’re a biological male, you have absolutely no recollection of what it’s like to be a woman other than the stereotypes that patriarchy has infiltrated.
THAT’S why it’s offensive. Supporting gender by saying 'feminine’ males are woman, and 'masculine’ women are men supports the patriarchal gender binary, and further subordinates women. There is absolutely no other way a male can 'feel’ like a woman, and 'gender/sex’ dysphoria clearly refers to the assumption that women are 'naturally’ what their socialisation dictates; and not feeling like a 'man’ means you must be a woman.
Sex and gender are different. Sex = male and female, unchangeable, fact, biological, scientific. Gender = socially constructed assumptions based on the sex, made to subordinate women, an oppressive tool.
Getting rid of gender does not mean getting rid of sex. Getting rid of gender means males can act however they want without the expectation to be the stereotypical man that patriarchy has set out for you. The same with women. It means dressing, acting, behaving, choosing to do whatever you want without the strict guidelines of your 'gender’. Gender is not your 'pronouns’. Gender is not an identity. You cannot separate gender from gender stereotypes, gender rules, gender roles, etc. They’re all a product of patriarchy.
Trans women and women are victims of patriarchy. Trans women are biological males who behave outside of their 'stereotype’ that patriarchy assigned for them. That does not make them women. There is no such thing as a male identifying as a female, because the only thing that seperates us are unchangeable scientific facts that cannot be replicated.
This is not a 'hate speech’, because a hate speech is based on unfounded, false hatred. I do not hate trans women. I hate patriarchy and it’s tools, such as gender. Trans activism supports gender, and radical feminists oppose it. Supporting gender supports patriarchy, and you cannot seperate the two. You all can misconstrue this, belittle me for using FACT over appealing to patriarchy, call me names and send me death threats as you already do. I suggest rereading it before you do, and realise that we do not want harm done to trans women. We don’t hate them. We don’t send you death threats. We don’t send you rape threats. You do.
So next time, get your fucking facts right before you begin acting like violent, aggressive products of your VERY REAL socialisation.
Capitalist property does not exist except by exploitation, and its value is fixed by surplus-value. Let surplus-value disappear in one way or another, let the worker receive the full product of his labour, and capitalist property will disappear at the same time. If the proletariat improves its conditions of labour in such a way that enterprises will no longer bring any profit to capital, their capitalist value will fall to zero; the factories can become very useful to society, but they will have lost their value for the capitalists.