can 2024 be the year we stop calling stay-at-home moms stupid for being ‘financially dependent’ and risking being trapped in abusive relationships, and instead start addressing why there are no social safety nets in place for people who choose to leave the workforce to raise their children
i’m going to be starting a job soon where it looks like almost all of my coworkers/bosses are going to be cis women and i am…terrified. especially since this is the job i’m going to have to get time off from for top surgery.
if there’s one thing i’ve learned over the almost ten years of my transition, it’s that a situation where i’m the only guy there is one where my gender is guaranteed to not be respected. it really feels like far too many cis women realize they’re alone with a trans man and just see it as an opportunity to act out some sort of power fantasy where they get to stick it to the big bad evil men by taking out their anger on the first man they see without the power to fight back. that or they decide you’re “just one of the girls” and will not hear otherwise, but honestly, given where i’m at in my physical transition, i have a feeling the former is more likely.
there was a time when i felt safer around cis women than around cis men, but now it’s just a different kind of threat.
It's so hard to fully encapsulate my rage at just how much people buy into the idea that capitalism will uniquely incentivize people to innovate when... it isn't about innovation. It is about profit, and those two things are not mutually inclusive ideas.
Maybe I'm getting too old, but all of these "new innovative" ideas were shit we had in ye olden days - movies, renting, delivery services, taxis, housing - we had all of those services, except now, it's exorbitantly more expensive because of price gouging.
You aren't witnessing innovation; you are witnessing the modern invention of the wheel behind a ludicrous pay wall.
Telling content creators it's wrong to explore artistic freedom and be independently funded by fans, and they should instead continue taking advertisement revenue from google* is
The situation with Tango Gameworks makes me so angry. Capitalism has mutated to a point where the art that hundreds of people worked together to make means NOTHING according to the greedy corporations. I swear these people would rather be dead than NOT sabotage creativity (as if Coyote vs. ACME and Batgirl weren’t proof). What happened to Tango Gameworks and Hi-Fi Rush is like some alternate timeline where Nirvana just broke up a year after Nevermind came out. Whenever another company “welcomes” another into “the family”, DON’T GET EXCITED. People got excited when Disney bought 20th Century Fox because “THE X-MEN ARE IN THE MCU, FINALLY!”. No joke, people were rooting for the rich getting richer. Basically guys, capitalism is a joke and workers deserve more. Phil Spencer, you used to be cool, dude. What happened?
hello! if it's alright to ask and know, what are the anti-semitic ties that the court of owls has? i'm not informed about this and i need help being educated and informed
Ho boy am I definitely not the right person to answer this question considering I'm not Jewish but the good news is there's a post I can link by a Jewish person which does explain the anti semitic aspects of the court of owls which you can read here
radfems, here's some all rounded perspective about prostitution, poverty, child trafficking (and how the rich are involved in all of it), organ harvesting and forced labor in India.
MASSIVE trigger warning, obviously. This woman is an activist who has rescued thousands of women from prostitution/fast fashion factories etc. and we've never heard of her.
in the end, it all comes down to male depravity and poverty. this was a horrifying and eye opening watch. there's english subtitles, even though they're not great.
i NEED to ramble about the ‘tiktok brainlets sayinf goth/punk aren’t music based subcultures’ topic from @dreamspring ‘s post because it is ITCHING my autistic little brain
they want to be part of the ‘aesthetic’ without doing any of the actual work (ie. listening to music they don’t like) or understanding where it came from. these mfs do NOT know that Crass refused to sell their records for profit and have NOT listened to a second of bela lugosi’s dead. they’re just stuck in this infuriating little trend cycle that consists of black clothes and shein chokers.
the POINT of these genres is that they aren’t intended to be digestible. they aren’t supposed to fit into a box. late stage capitalism is suppressing the meaning of subculture while churning out endless piles of consumerist junk for people to buy to call themselves alternative. you could argue that this all started during the ‘2020 tiktok alt’ phase where people started wearing demonias and listening to 100gecs. this aesthetic didn’t exist outside of the internet- it had no grounding in real life.
i’m not gonna say that the tiktok alt bunny hat demonia monster energy 100gecs bollocks is cringe because sometimes when you’re a teenager (particularly a queer one) you go through weird phases. it happens to the best of us. but what i WILL say is it sparked so much debate about ‘what counts as alt’ from bunny hats to lace code ??? (yeah ppl liked to bring that one up as some kind of gotcha or i-know-more-than-you thing).
the difference here is that goth and punk ARE and WERE real life. they started as subsections of society with attitudes, clothes, ways of living, and MUSIC. the music and clothes are expressions of attitudes and they’re too connected to separate.
it’s like this weird chicken and egg situation for them when in reality they should just get a grip and TRY listening to some of the music. TRY going to a show or doing a bit of DIY. it’s more than just a little sticker you can put on your lil peep spotify playlist.
and at the end of the day, you don’t HAVE to be a punk or a goth to have left wing views!! it’s fine if you aren’t! and you can try different things out and maybe … learn something new … outside of the tiktok hyper consumerist bubble! what!!! no way!!! it’s almost like the app is designed to monopolise your time and thoughts and categorise everything into neat little sellable aesthetics !!!
it’s all just so WANK how these ppl are afraid they might overstep or do something wrong or somehow appropriate something. if this is the case for you then KILL THE POSER IN YOUR MIND.
in conclusion: if you can’t at least TRY a LITTLE BIT to explore a subculture style in a way you’re able to (outside of the tiktok comment section) then PISS OFF you little poser. xxx
In order for multinational corporations to protect their freedom to pollute the atmosphere, peasants, farmers, and Indigenous people are losing their freedom to live and sustain themselves in peace. When the Big Green groups refer to offsets as the “low-hanging fruit” of climate action, they are in fact making a crude cost-benefit analysis that concludes that it’s easier to cordon off a forest inhabited by politically weak people in a poor country than to stop politically powerful corporate emitters in rich countries—that it’s easier to pick the fruit, in other words, than dig up the roots.
The added irony is that many of the people being sacrificed for the carbon market are living some of the most sustainable, low-carbon lifestyles on the planet. They have strong reciprocal relationships with nature, drawing on local ecosystems on a small scale while caring for and regenerating the land so it continues to provide for them and their descendants. An environmental movement committed to real climate solutions would be looking for ways to support these ways of life—not severing deep traditions of stewardship and pushing more people to become rootless urban consumers. [...]
Geographer Bram Büscher coined the term “liquid nature” to refer to what these market mechanisms are doing to the natural world. As he describes it, the trees, meadows, and mountains lose their intrinsic, place-based meaning and become deracinated, virtual commodities in a global trading system. The carbon-sequestering potential of biotic life is virtually poured into polluting industries like gas into a car’s tank, allowing them to keep on emitting. Once absorbed into this system, a pristine forest may look as lush and alive as ever, but it has actually become an extension of a dirty power plant on the other side of the planet, attached by invisible financial transactions. Polluting smoke may not be billowing from the tops of its trees but it may as well be, since the trees that have been designated as carbon offsets are now allowing that pollution to take place elsewhere.
The mantra of the early ecologists was “everything is connected”—every tree a part of an intricate web of life. The mantra of the corporate-partnered conservationists, in sharp contrast, may as well be “everything is disconnected,” since they have successfully constructed a new economy in which the tree is not a tree but rather a carbon sink used by people thousands of miles away to appease our consciences and maintain our levels of economic growth.
Indigenous Hawaiians really had a good system going: wake up reaaally early and do most of the days work while it's cool and by the time the sun was up and it got hot the work was done and you're free to surf and socialize. I wish the white people realized they themselves could work smarter and not harder and get time to relax. Instead of calling Hawaiians lazy (and being genocidal about it)
I was always enraged at the way capitalism has devalued some of the most important labour in human history, but now I'm even more angry since I have started getting more into crafts.
So many people are alienated from the world to such an extent they don't realize how fucking important textiles and construction and art and culinary labour is, because its all ubiquitous under capitalism: it is all profit, and if it isn't profit, then it is worthless. People don't realize just how revolutionary all of the labour was, how important it is, and was, to our survival. And that enrages me.
"Essentially love is a profoundly social emotion. At all stages of human development love has in different forms, it is true, been an integral part of culture. Even the bourgeoisie, who saw love as a “private matter,” was able to channel the expression of love in its class interests. The ideology of the working class must pay even greater attention to the significance of love as a factor which can, like any other psychological or social phenomenon, be channeled to the advantage of the collective. Love is not in the least a “private” matter concerning only the two loving persons: love possesses a uniting element which is valuable to the collective. This is clear from the fact that at all stages of historical development society has established norms defining when and under what conditions love is “legal” (i.e. corresponds to the interests of the given social collective), and when and under what conditions love is sinful and criminal (i.e. contradicts the tasks of the given society).
From the very early stages of its social being, humanity has sought to regulate not only sexual relations but love itself.
In the kinship community, love for one��s blood relations was considered the highest virtue. The kinship group would not have approved of a woman sacrificing herself for the sake of a beloved husband: fraternal or sisterly attachment were the most highly regarded feelings. Antigone, who according to the Greek legend risked her life to bury the body of her dead brother, was a heroine in the eyes of her contemporaries. Modern bourgeois society would consider such an action on the part of a sister as highly curious. In the times of tribal rule, when the state was still in its embryonic stage, the love held in greatest respect was the love between two members of the same tribe. In an era when the social collective had only just evolved from the stage of kinship community and was still not firmly established in its new form, it was vitally important that its members were linked by mental and emotional ties. Love-friendship was the most suitable type of tie, since at that time the interests of the collective required the growth and accumulation of contacts not between the marriage pair but between fellow-members of the tribe, between the organizers and defenders of the tribe and state that is to say, between the men of the tribe, of course; women at that time had no role to play in social life, and there was no talk of friendship among women). “Friendship” was praised and considered far more important than love between man and wife. Castor and Pollux were famous for their loyalty to each other and their unshakable friendship, rather than for the feats they performed for their country. For the sake of friendship or its semblance a man might offer his wife to an acquaintance or a guest.
The ancient world considered friendship and “loyalty until the grave” to be civic virtues. Love in the modern sense of the word had no place, and hardly attracted the attention either of poets or of writers. The dominant ideology of that time relegated love to the sphere of narrow, personal experiences with which society was not concerned; marriage was based on convenience, not on love. Love was just one among other amusements; it was a luxury which only the citizen who had fulfilled all his obligations to the state could afford. While bourgeois ideology values the “ability to love” provided it confines itself to the limits set down by bourgeois morality, the ancient world did not consider such emotions in its categories of virtues and positive human qualities. The person who accomplished great deeds and risked his life for his friend was considered a hero and his action “most virtuous” while a man risking himself for the sake of a woman he loved would have been reproached or even despised.
The morality of the ancient world, then, did not even recognize the love that inspired men to great deeds – the love so highly regarded in the feudal period – as worthy of consideration. The ancient world recognized only those emotions which drew its fellow-members close together and rendered the emerging social organism more stable. In subsequent stages of cultural development, however, friendship ceases to be considered a moral virtue. Bourgeois society was built on the principles of individualism and competition, and has no place for friendship as a moral factor. Friendship does not help in any way, and may hinder the achievement of class aims; it is viewed as an unnecessary manifestation of “sentimentality” and weakness. Friendship becomes an object of derision. Castor and Pollux in the New York of London of today would only evoke a condescending smile. This was not so in feudal society, where love-friendship was seen as a quality to be taught and encouraged."
From ‘Make Way For Winged Eros: A Letter to Working Youth’, by Alexandra Kollontai (1923) x