tumblr chemotherapy

"

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies…

"

Reblogged from we-are-star-stuff

New study indicates homophobia is often a result of repressed homosexual feelings, validating what Freud posited in his concept of “reaction formation,” in which we lash out against others’ expressions of what we loathe in ourselves.

It might be a new study, but it’s not a new idea. In fact, it’s one of the first explanations for homophobic abuse I ever heard - that it’s pent-up homosexual repression. It made sense at the time, and there’s no doubt that at least some homophobic abuse is as a result of guys being gay and trying to bash it out of themselves. 

However, it cannot explain all aversion to homosexuality. Historically, for instance, antiSemitism has not been as a result of people secretly considering themselves Jewish, nor anti-black racism because white people are subconsciously suppressing a black identity. 

The psychology of hate is a bit more complicated (or simple) than that.

(Source: )

Reblogged from sulitati

sulitati:

La Cosecha / The Harvest (2011)

“Every year there are more than 400,000 American children who are torn away from their friends, schools and homes to pick the food we all eat.  Zulema, Perla and Victor labor as migrant farm workers, sacrificing their own childhoods to help their families survive.  The Harvest / La Cosecha profiles these three as they journey from the scorching heat of Texas’ onion fields to the winter snows of the Michigan apple orchards and back south to the humidity of Florida’s tomato fields to follow the harvest and provides an intimate glimpse into the lives of these children who struggle to dream while working 12 – 14 hours a day, 7 days a week to feed America.”

Wait. That’s like .. 60 dollars a day by my figures. 7 days a week means 420 dollars a week. And that’s assuming a slow day. That’s more than I’m earning. What the balls.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, overworking immigrant labour and taking advantage of people is bad and so on, but 420 dollars a week is more than I’m getting right now. 

PostSatire is on holiday!

I have to take a break because of this

I’ll be back blowing your tiny little minds soon enough.

"A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On"

Reblogged from notaprincessdestinedtobeawitch

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

1. Read some posts of men talking about their experiences, and some criticisms of tumblr feminism.

2. Do everything possible to minimise those criticisms and experiences, in the following ways:

i) Find some way - any way at all, no matter how ridiculous - to make these criticisms of feminism actually part of the problem. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature! For the record, unfalsifiable =/= bulletproof, although there is a long a proud history of believing this to be true (cf. religion). 

ii) Place the trivial social stuff (“nice guy” syndrome, paying for dinner) right after the serious legal stuff (false rape accusations), without making any distinction between them, thereby making it seem that all criticisms are trivial. It’s quite subtle, but psychologically manipulative.

iii) Finish, as is traditional, with horrendously patronizing language (“you should be thanking feminists” and “try caring”) designed not so much to convince men to agree, but to advertise to your blog followers that you’re “calling them out”. 

3) Dump the whole thing into a post which you can safely share with your passive-aggressive friends, passive because it pretends to be a defense of tumblr feminism, aggressive because it’s actually an attack on the many legitimate criticisms of feminism, and by extension, men: Passive-aggressive.

If feminist blogs put HALF as much effort into actually dealing with criticisms that they put into spreading posts claiming that they deal with them, that would be a good start.

For instance, I’m still waiting for a single feminist response to the problem of false rape accusations without some bullshit qualifying language, or without making the post about something else.

If feminists blogs put HALF as much effort into actually engaging with the concerns of their critics (who are not always men, by the way) that they put into minimizing  trivializing and ridiculing those posters, that would be a good start. By the way, “that never happens” or “I’ve never seen a feminist do that” counts as minimizing and trivializing. So thanks for that.

As ever, I will judge you by what you post, not what you think you’re posting, and certainly not what you tell me you’re posting. 

We need to get over this idea that being offended is something that needs to be protected against, either legislatively or informally. 
Being offended is a choice. You have the right to choose to be offended by anything you like, for any reasons you see fit. Some people feel it’s very important to be offended, and even though it doesn’t really benefit me, I am prepared to defend your right to be offended.
You do not have the right to live your whole life without ever being offended. 
If you find yourself using social justice language for nothing more than to rephrase, “I was offended by this,” then you’re just advertising that you made a choice to exercise your right. 

We need to get over this idea that being offended is something that needs to be protected against, either legislatively or informally. 

Being offended is a choice. You have the right to choose to be offended by anything you like, for any reasons you see fit. Some people feel it’s very important to be offended, and even though it doesn’t really benefit me, I am prepared to defend your right to be offended.

You do not have the right to live your whole life without ever being offended. 

If you find yourself using social justice language for nothing more than to rephrase, “I was offended by this,” then you’re just advertising that you made a choice to exercise your right. 

"If it would destroy [a 12-year-old boy] to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?"

Reblogged from kingofscotland

Tony Porter

I’m pretty sure most 12-year-old girls wouldn’t be too impressed to be called boys. Maybe that does’t mean anything? Maybe it’s a tricky age and it’s when boys and girls are most sensitive about their sexual identities and so on. 

I have a feeling you’re overthinking the wrong part of this and underthinking everything else. 

(Source: whitecolonialism)

I have an unprovable opinion! Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

Reblogged from breatheplease

I have an unprovable opinion! Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

Still Not An MRA.

Still refuse to use the term “misandry”. 

Thanks for all your messages and helpful comments. And the comments that didn’t help - thanks for taking the time to send them anyway.

Who has the time to read all those words, when there are photos of sunsets and roadsigns and badly-dressed actresses and tattoos and kittens and stuff that’s so fucking derivative it might as well have been scanned from the American Apparel catalogue and fuck you.

Who has the time to read all those words, when there are photos of sunsets and roadsigns and badly-dressed actresses and tattoos and kittens and stuff that’s so fucking derivative it might as well have been scanned from the American Apparel catalogue and fuck you.

"A friend of mine asked me recently, was I gonna go see the new Batman movie with him. It’s just I don’t respect the concept of Batman because of what I understand about politics now… I’mma lay it out for you: rich dude owns a corporation. Has state of the art equipment, and he uses this to beat up on street level crime. He doesn’t mess with the industrialists, or the super capitalists, or the Murdochs, or the Trumps. He really just fuck with the person that’s just on the corner. Batman is a conservative’s wet dream. Fuck Batman."

Reblogged from honda

- Reginald D. Hunter 

Reg Hunter’s great. He’s managed to make a comedy bit out of the fact that Batman’s a fictional character, a superhero with deep-seated psychological issues that are explored repeatedly in the comics. In one of them, it’s even implied that the only reason these super-villains exist is because of Batman. It’s dark stuff, and if you’re going to take the view that he’s a “conservative’s wet dream”, you’re going to miss most of the depth of character. 

Basically, I guess, forget about the movies, which necessarily have to take a very narrow view (because they only have two hours to work it all out) and stick to the comics. I recommend in particular an Andrew Vachss masterpiece called The Ultimate Evil, wherein our intrepid hero is completely undone by the daily real-life horror and tragedy the average Gotham City social worker has to face. Or maybe Gotham Central is more your cup of tea, where the men and women of the law enforcement community are resigned to having this weirdo vigilante getting in their way at the most sensitive times.

On another level, when it comes to superheroes, I think I’d prefer to see some guy besting ridiculous, over-blown villains from the darkest recesses of our psyches than looking for suspicious off-shore accounts and tackling corporate malfeasance, you know? 

On yet another level, the joke is funny, but never confuse top quality comedy for relevant social commentary. There is no causal link.

I never thought I’d have to defend the fucking Batman, on this blog, or anywhere. What the hell is wrong with you people? 

tl;dr READ MOAR