It turns out that actually standing by "men and women are not inherently very different" is a reliable way to bother absolutely everyone. Left or right, cis or trans, feminist or misogynist, all cling to the binary for dear life.
Can u imagine being SO delusional about ur own sexuality that u would rather think your capitain is a god than consider the possibility that you are in love with him
what's interesting to me about classic books is how writers like Jane Austen and the Brontes did feminism better than so many authors in the 1990s onward who were deliberately trying.
you know those girlboss stories, where the only way the author could think to make women interesting is to make them punch away their problems like the men. (i loved Buffy but she's a typical example of this.) they still implicitly support the idea that men's stories are the only ones worth telling, because that kind of might is inaccessible to most women in real life. this is the playschool level of feminism, a gender swap without any deeper engagement with women's perspectives.
whereas old school women writers found a way to make real women's stories compelling, even within the severe restrictions they lived under 100+ years ago. look at how beloved Pride and Prejudice is despite being about 'a bunch of people going to other people's houses.' the characters still have interior lives, their own wills, and the determination to succeed despite obstacles. all this is done without even wanting to make a feminist point; most of these writers would not have called themselves feminists. (Anne Bronte, maybe.) it's so un-self-conscious. they still have something to teach us.
I dont know if this is a hot take or what, but I feel like its pretty cruel to judge John for being attracted to his mum.
I don’t think its right that he was attracted to her - but I also feel like its wrong to throw it into the barrel of reasons why he was a bad person.
There, I said it 😤
Yeah, let's talk about this bc it actually drives me nuts how people can look at John's childhood of being shuffled between two different kinds of unstable, emotional incest and then draw the conclusion that he, at fourteen, was some fully developed predatory kink-creep who independently produced the idea that his mom wanted to fuck him all on his own. I don't usually like to engage in the "imagine a completely different scenario, checkmate atheists!" rhetorical feint, but like, for real: imagine a woman telling an identical anecdote about her father and then everyone being like "yeah the weirdness in this relationship was 100% generated solely by the child".
It's not that I think Julia was a predator or anything, or that I trust Mimi's perspective to be completely clear-headed, but from everything I've read about the situation, it really does appear that Mimi removed him from Julia's care at least partially because she thought he was being exposed to something inappropriate; combined with ppl saying that Julia was often flirtatious with John's teen friends and it's like... hmmmmmst. There are some red flags that may explain a few things here. Perhaps the fourteen year old's crossed wires were the result of some specific life experiences that were not in any way under his control.
YES!! ^^^
I am cautious to disparage Julias name purely based off of rumours (not trying to shit on you there, cause im sure you are too ^^) but when its close to impossible to find an account of Julia that isn’t coated in heavy bias, it is difficult to come to any real conclusion about her. And so I guess we have to import our own critical thinking skills, and ask ourselves if potentially she did play some role in John developing this attraction to her, or whether her behaviour around John and other teenage boys was appropriate. But even if she didn’t act in any kind of manner that provoked those feelings in John, I still think we should be treating the matter with a lot more empathy and understanding then *certain people* do. Not just for Johns sake, but even just for the sake of anyone who has had similar experiences to him. Writing these sorts of things off as just “gross” or “disgusting” has no benefits at the end of the day.
Also yes to the stuff about Pauls dad! I don’t know to what extent Jims upbringing would be considered abusive, but it doesn’t feel unreasonable to question whether it might’ve entailed abuse to some degree. Hearing Paul tell this story (at 37:24) in the Stern interview, it does feel like the stuff about his dad hitting him really did hurt and disturb on a level that we don’t talk about enough. That doesn’t mean we have to vilify Jim, or hate the guy - at the end of the day, there is only so much information on him, and none of us were there etc. - plus there is some truth to claim that “thats just how kids were raised in those days”, so im not saying we can’t show any empathy at all towards Pauls dad. But I don’t know, I just don’t think we have to neglect the discussion that Pauls childhood might’ve been difficult too.
discourse from the year 2043: getting a song stuck in your head is immoral because it takes money away from the artists that would get paid if you were actually listening to it
BTW when you encounter a character and think "What's this guy's fucking problem?" that's your body trying to give you an out before you fall into obsession.
the beauty of the world is that there are people out there having basically indistiguishable gender and sexuality experiences and one has several microlabels and an army of pride flags, one says "idk i guess im nonbinary or something" and the other is comfortably cis with a little flexibility. and all of them are correct because your identity is whatever you make of it.
If you live in the European Union, know that in October there will be a vote to pass Chat Control a law that will read anyone's private messages in the European Union.
So if you are in the European Union please contact your MEPS (members of the European Parliament via this):
If you aren't in the European Union please do share!
Tags by @brennacedria
So if this passes, all messages, videos and images sent by someone in the EU would be scanned. I don't know what would happen if someone outside of the EU sends a message to someone in the EU.
However, if you are friends and family in the EU, all messages they send to you will be scanned. So yes, you could be affected by this even if you don't live here.
Note that you can send mails to MEPs (members of the European Parliament) if you aren't from the EU. The website up there has the email addresses of all of them and email templates in multiple languages.
ALT
ALT
Yeah, it's a euphemism because there's a lot of Westerners that have a completely skewed view of the war in Ukraine and have to be let down very, very gently. Ukraine is going to have "to give things up to Russia" because that's what happens when you start a war and then lose it. You'd think they'd teach you that at a fucking Ivy League school.
Oh, dear. Tumblr was full of baby tankies when russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Those tankies grew up and grew out of their stupidity, but eleven years later, here's the next generation of edgy Western "communists" to celebrate genocide in Ukraine.
You're a dipshit and should kill yourself you nazi dicksucker.
Thank you.
No, I need to say more about this person.
They have an account that supports BLM, COVID measures, gay rights.
However, mention Ukraine, and then Ukrainians have to kill themselves because they're dicksuckers.
The Western far-left is no better than MAGA.
