Not crazy, just weird
next—
Not crazy, just weird

rainbowfacekat:

friendlyneighborhoodgoth:

kenfucky:

THIS IS MY FAVORITE VINE

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

I have, /so/ many questions.

THIS IS THE BEST VINE I HAVE EVER SEEN

I am not offended by generalizations about white people or cis people.

fandomsandfeminism:

I’m not. If a PoC blogger gets fed up and types out a post about white people without clarifying that they meant “not all white people”, or a trans person posts about cis people without saying “not all cis people” I am not offended.

Do you want to know why?

Because in that situation, there is only one of three possible realities:

  1. I think about it and understand that I don’t do those things that the blogger is talking about, and the post isn’t about me really, so I move on.
  2. I think about it and realize that “oh shit” I DO sometimes do whatever it is they are talking about, and I fucking realize that I need to fix that behavior because holy hells I don’t want to be enforcing oppressive bullshit.
  3. It’s a joke at the expense of the oppressive majority. Seriously.

That’s it. Those are the only Three possibilities. The post either isn’t about me, or I’m getting called out on shit I need to fix, or it’s a joke (and not a joke at the expense of the marginalized but at the expense of the privileged). That’s it. Not something I’m going to fight about.

cassemlyds:

listen I’m not saying that Scarlett Johansson’s response to Dylan Farrow’s letter was the worst one of them all, but do just wanna kind of gently/aggressively remind everyone in the midst of reblogging Winter Soldier shit that Scarlett Johansson is a rape apologist and is also starring in one of the most racist pieces of shit to come out this year, so maybe dial back your “feminist” glee about how “body positive” she is.

ilovecharts:

This is no way to handle a rape case.

clirkstrider:

"I tried to scroll past this"

and now i will succeed where you have failed

manamana6672:

missespeon:

outofcontextarthur:

can we talk about how this fucking pbs show aimed at little kids easily talked about how anxiety is stressful but normal

Ok no but can we talk about this entire episode? 

It was called April 9th, and it was actually a response to the 9/11 attacks. It didn’t talk about the attacks themselves, but rather focused on teaching kids to deal with the all of the emotions that they might be feeling as a result. They set up a situation that might evoke similar emotions in children: a massive fire at the school.

Arthur’s dad was in the fire, so (as you can see above), Arthur is constantly worried about his dad’s safety.

Sue Ellen is grieving because her journal, which contained a huge amount of precious memories, was destroyed in the fire. Muffy is confused why she can’t just cheer Sue Ellen up by giving her a new journal.

Buster wasn’t at school that day, and feels confused and guilty that he isn’t sad about the fire like the other kids. He then befriends the school janitor, who has to retire due to an injury that, at his age, is pretty serious.

Binky actually saw the flames, and is constantly traumatized by the event. He doesn’t tell anyone because he feels like he would lose his tough-guy reputation if he admitted that he was scared.

The episode teaches kids that all of these emotions are perfectly normal and natural, that there’s not one right way to feel, and that even if it takes a while, things are going to be okay.

The thing that makes this show so great, in my opinion, is that it knows that kids are intellegent and strong enough to deal with these things if you present them in the right way. It doesn’t hide them, it doesn’t sugar coat them, it just presents them in a way that children can understand and shows them how to deal with them.

preludetowind:

Studio Ghibli films throughout the years

alxndrmrtnz:

#oh hi im helen #oh you live in milwaukee? #oh i’m sorry #ohhh have you met lillian? #ohh she’s my best friend #ohhh we’ve only known each other for five minutes #ohhh ohhh

alxndrmrtnz:

#oh hi im helen #oh you live in milwaukee? #oh i’m sorry #ohhh have you met lillian? #ohh she’s my best friend #ohhh we’ve only known each other for five minutes #ohhh ohhh

"

Gender policing is all about the little things. It’s the daily, intimate terrorism of beauty and dress and behaviour. In this as in so much else, feminists who are not transsexual can learn a great deal from trans writers and activists - I’m indebted to the work of Charlie Jane Anders, and Julia Serano, both of whom talk about how femininity gets captured by capitalism, and how that homogenous, compulsory performance of femininity becomes a scapegoat for all society’s bad feelings about women in general and trans women in particular. So it is not enough to feel that you are a woman - you have to prove it with a hundred daily conformities and capitulations. The reason the Veet advert is so hurtful, the reason the “Women Eating on the Tube” site and its backlash went so viral, is that they both spell out gender policing at its simplest level – behave, be quiet and pretty and compliant, control your messy, hairy, hungry self, or you are not a woman at all.

None of which is to say that girliness can’t be a good time. Dressing up, playing with makeup, fashion – all of that is a lot of fun right up until it becomes compulsory, until you have to do it to prove you’re a real woman, a good employee, a person worthy of love and affection. The same goes for all of the bizarre rules that go along with being female in this society, the rules you have to engage with whether or not you choose to follow them: be pretty. Be nice. Be thin. Try to look as young and fragile as possible. Be sexy, but not overtly sexual. Don’t eat in public. Don’t eat at all. Your body is all wrong: shave it down, starve it smaller, take up less space, be less physical, be less.

The little things turn out to be about the big things. They’re about race, class and gender status. For trans women, or women of black, middle-eastern or Mediterranean heritage, the question of body hair is extra fraught, because “passing” as a woman these days turns out to mean looking as much like a nubile white cissexual supermodel as possible. Shaving or waxing is an ongoing expense, even if you do it yourself at home; getting hair removed professionally or lasered away permanently can run to thousands of dollars over a lifetime. The same principle applies to eating on public transport: doing so is not considered “classy”. “Real ladies” conceal their bodily functions from the world as much as possible. “Real ladies” are blank, smooth, pale slates, with nothing inside, no guts, no gore, no appetite, no personality.

Cultural disgust for the female body is deeply political. It is tied into reproductive and social control, which affects all female-identified people, whether or not we plan to have children or are biologically capable of pregnancy. Gender policing is about making sure that women don’t get above ourselves, that we can be seen as less than human, with no real interiority, without real bodies that eat and shit and hurt and die. If the female body remains a beautiful mystery, if it remains an ethereal, abstract quantity, you don’t have to feel so bad when you do bad things to it.

The slippery slope of gender: why shaving and snacking are feminist issues

An excellent piece by by Laurie Penny

(via galdrar)

vega-ofthe-lyre:

Fall 2014 RTW | Tony Ward