Solarpunk ideas, science, technology and aesthetic.
About Me: I'm Felice, a 25 year old GIS Technichichian. In my spare time i like to make dresses out of curtains.
(this whole blog is queued)
"The ruling recognizes that the indigenous community was founded before the Mexican state and therefore has the right to federal justice as established in the second article of the constitution,” Martínez said.
Trans people have to walk this really fine line with respect to acceptable gender expression. Deviating from what is considered ‘normal’ for their gender results in the credibility of that gender being called into question in ways that just don’t happen with cis people.
(while this happens with all trans people, I’m going to focus on trans women for this post)
The truth is, while feminism is making awesome inroads in creating space for women to adopt a range of gender expressions beyond what social norms of ‘women’ have prescribed, so often that only applies to cis women. Trans women who ‘break’ femininity are regarded as essentially 'letting slip’ their ‘actual gender’.
This is a symptom of the fact that trans people are largely still considered to be ‘acting like ’ their gender - ‘acting’ being the operative term. People see their gender as being something that sits upon a deeper truth - some less genuine, something deceptive.
There’s another side to this, of course, for trans women who adopt non-transgressive expressions of femininity - they’re accused (often within the feminist community) of reinforcing stereotypes, damaging the image of women.
So there’s really no way to win. Trans women who conform too much are essentially accused of being in bad drag, trans women who don’t conform enough are accused of a lack of commitment to their gender.
That great work we do, where we’re troubling what gender norms are, challenging sexist ideals, and taking control of our bodies? We need to make sure that we’re opening up those opportunities for ALL women. And we need to make that space available for all other genders, as well. I don’t believe in feminism that opens doors to some people while locking them for others.
It’s not about the productivity. If we worked less, we’d have time to cook our own meals, fix our devices, do DIY projects, grow food, talk to our neighbors, improve our communities, get our stuff from real stores instead of ordering on amazon, maybe even go around and find a small business instead of just going to walmart because it’s easy, walk or bike instead of drive, play in the park instead of collapsing in front of the TV to turn our brains off, look around a public library instead of just buying online, etc, etc, etc
Exhausted people are easy to sell convenience to and easy to isolate. If we had time, we’d realize we don’t need them
Liberalism can’t explain things like why we still work 8 hour days when it’s well-proven that 4 hour days increase both happiness and overall productivity because it can’t recognize the fundamentally adversarial relationship we have with the owning class. The missing piece of the puzzle is that the rich directly benefit from keeping us miserable, and that will continue to be the case as long as they’re rewarded for exploiting us. Reform won’t fix that, taxation won’t fix it, redistribution won’t fix it. Only abolishing centralized ownership of the means of production will
ok but unironically: on paw patrol, there's a 'recycling dog' who I think is just a bin man, and it's the only dog described as a 'mongrel'. this dog also apparently does not bathe, which is a running gag. paw patrol denigrates the working class, especially those that fulfil important but undesirable jobs
The offset model purports that forest loss in one place can be mitigated by planting elsewhere – take the political promises of ‘no net biodiversity loss’ for HS2, the high-speed mega-construction set to slice through the countryside.
But clearing vast areas of old pasture or ancient woodland would take 500 years to replace. Trees are slow, ancient, careful creatures that cannot be easily coerced into an anthropocentric regime that values quick, blueprint solutions.
Plantations are worlds away from ancient woodlands. Worryingly, by paying for carbon offsets in the form of new plantations, consumers and businesses are given the false impression of having no negative effect on the planet. What we should be focussing most of our attention on is protecting the ancient forests that exist, not planting trillions more trees.
Whilst the urgency of tree-planting for climate change mitigation is very real, our conception of what a forest is matters. Visions translate into material outcomes, and if we’re not careful, we’ll end up with a world blanketed in rows of short-rotation monocrops, poor in biodiversity, ironically justified under the banner of environmentalism.
Environmental activist Diane Wilson on Tuesday celebrated the approval of a settlement with plastics giant Formosa Plastics Corp. that will see the company devote $50 million to remediating areas of the Texas Gulf Coast it polluted.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt approved the settlement (pdf), which was reached in October.
“If this isn’t a David-and-Goliath story, I don’t know what is,” tweeted Texas Tribune reporter Kiah Collier.
…
Collier’s reporting in the Tribune Tuesday about the settlement detailed the way the money will be used:
TRLA said the $50 million settlement is the largest in U.S. history involving a private citizen’s lawsuit against anindustrial polluter under federal clean air and water laws. The money will be poured into a trust over the next five years and used to pay for programs supporting pollution mitigation, habitat restoration, public education and other environmental efforts on the middle Texas Gulf Coast.
In a statement, Wilson expressed her satisfaction with the settlement’s approval.
“Having the $50 million settlement go to local environmental projects feels like justice,” said Wilson. “Formosa polluted Lavaca Bay and nearby waterways for years. Now it will pay for strong community projects that will improve the health and welfare of our waterways and beaches.”