Lost Grrrls
Scrapbook of a Barbarian Generation feminist
and wannabe bulletproof tiger.
(You can also reach me via email and twitter)
-
Photo reblogged from Esme Weatherwax
![fracturedrefuge:
secretsofthedisabled:
fromonesurvivortoanother:
[image: Stokley Carmichael at a podium, saying: “In order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.”]
“Dr. King’s policy was that non-violence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His main assumption was that if you were non-violent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption. In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.” -Stokley Carmichael
This is the most obvious thing in the world, but I never thought about it that way until now. Yet another reason for me to question non-violence in certain contexts…
MOST BEAUTIFUL FUCKING QUOTE EVER.
Aaaaaand BOOM goes the dynamite.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2cyg8d03I1qetrgyo1_500.jpg)
[image: Stokley Carmichael at a podium, saying: “In order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.”]
“Dr. King’s policy was that non-violence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His main assumption was that if you were non-violent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption. In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.” -Stokley Carmichael
This is the most obvious thing in the world, but I never thought about it that way until now. Yet another reason for me to question non-violence in certain contexts…
MOST BEAUTIFUL FUCKING QUOTE EVER.
Aaaaaand BOOM goes the dynamite.
(Source: foreverinwonderland)
-
Post reblogged from the bad dominicana
im starting to realize that the worldwide condition of missing the forest for individual trees
is basically
decontextualization
in a nutshell
when people arent taught to contextualize every day fare into the grand overarching scheme
they will argue for ever that every single separate action and event that forms the network and system we all live under, exists in a vacuum and isnt tied to the other 897897897868767 events along the same hierarchal lines.
Truth.
-
The first segment of this episode is Terry Gross interviewing Jill Lepore about the recent history of birth control and abortion, including Margaret Sanger (Lepore makes a point to explain that Sanger is “not a likable person” and delves into the problem of her association with eugenicists without excusing it)… Honestly, there’s a lot I don’t know about this history, so I found this to be a really fascinating discussion.
And yes, this actually a kind of old episode… it’s from Nov of last year but I’ve recently discovered Fresh Air and so I’m on a kick downloading and listening to old episodes that sound interesting or relevant, such as this. If you’ve never given this show a shot before, I strongly encourage it.
-
Here is a Science fair project presented by a girl in a secondary school in Sussex . In it she took filtered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boiling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling in a microwave. Then after cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difference in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by microwave. As it turned out, even she was amazed at the difference, after the experiment which was repeated by her class mates a number of times and had the same result.
It has been known for some years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about, it’s how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it.
Microwaves don’t work different ways on different substances. Whatever you put into the microwave suffers the same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction which denatures the original make-up of the substance. It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature.
So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these ‘Safe’ appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed him when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it’s safe. But proof is in the pictures of living plants dying!
NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANT ASSWIPES.
SOME KID’S CLASS PROJECT IS NOT REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. YOU’VE HEARD OF “DOUBLE BLIND”, RIGHT? CALL ME WHEN IT’S PUBLISHED IN NATURE.
the structure or energy of the water
what the fuck does that even mean you realize that a water molecule is made up of three fucking atoms and if you rearrange it it isn’t water anymore and you would fucking notice
the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about
Here is a handy diagram I drew of all the different types of radiation:
Microwaves != nuclear reactors, so calm your tits.
it’s how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it
…do you understand what DNA is and how eating works? DNA is a jumble of protein in the middle of each cell and it tells the cells in that particular organism how to make more cells. Your body does not care about whether your food has any DNA in it or not. The chemicals it cares about are things like vitamins and sugars, as well as inorganic shit like salt.
(You can denature DNA by heating it or using chemicals like urea. It is like what happens when you fry an egg, which is basically a big glob of protein—the strands break apart and it looks like tiny white strings. Very cool.)
Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster.
I…just…that is the fucking definition of heat, whether you’re heating something over a flame or in a microwave or using the Sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water molecules in your food and they don’t need to use as much heat. Water boils at 100°C, which is just about as hot as water can get before it just turns into steam; but that’s like the lowest setting on your oven. Oven- or stove-cooked food tastes different partly because it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is transferred in a different way.
This movement causes friction
That’s not what friction is.
It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature.
Let’s take these one at a time.
- Vitamins are classified as water-soluble or fat-soluble. So cooking things in water will dissolve the water-soluble vitamins (C and all the B’s). Just plain heat doesn’t do that, so microwaving veggies—which keeps the water in—is actually a healthier option.
- Proteins: Breaking the chemical bonds in proteins (denaturing) is a part of any cooking. However, denatured protein is still nutritious—that’s why you can meet your protein intake with foods like fried eggs and baked chicken.
- Minerals are just chemical elements, like off the periodic table—sodium, iron, potassium. (Vitamins and proteins are very complex combinations of elements.)
Which brings me to the “radiolytic compound” bullshit. When you talk about breaking apart, say, iron—you’re talking about breaking down the iron atoms themselves. Which is a whole lot different than breaking the bonds between atoms. It takes hella radiation. You need shit like gamma rays—the OOOH SCARY NUCULAR radiation—which we’ve already established do not come from your microwave.
things that are not found in nature
What the shit does that even mean? You all know radioactive elements occur in nature, right? In rocks and also in living cells. That’s right, you have this radioactive kind of carbon INSIDE YOU. You get it by eating those delicious plants. We can tell how long ago something died by how much of it is left.
Tons of shit that occurs naturally is horribly bad for you. And tons of shit that never existed until we cooked it up is great for you—like the chemical compounds in a lot of medications.
PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS SHIT ARE WHY CHILDHOOD DISEASES THAT CAUSED SERIOUS ILLNESSES AND/OR DEATH THAT WE NEARLY ERADICATED WITH VACCINES ARE NOW COMING BACK AND WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIST TWATS ARE ASKING CITY COUNCIL NOT TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER AND WHY GLOBAL WARMING WILL WRECK OUR FUCKING PLANET.
LERN 2 SCIENCE. Think before you reblog. And microwave your veggies.
And this is precisely why I think everyone needs at least a very basic understanding of science- so they don’t make wild, ignorant claims like the OP and spread them around as FACTS, and so others don’t believe them.
PS, Snopes investigated this (with a control, which this science experiment is missing) and busted it. So…
-
Quote reblogged from Mama Bird MargaritasWhen someone works for less pay than she can live on - when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently - then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The “working poor,” as there are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.
Barbara Ehrenreich, “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America”
I recently read this book, and while several observations and statistics stuck out to me, this quote, on the last page, I believe really sums things up quite well.
(via lostgrrrls)
Forget the billionaire “job creators” — our working poor are really the ones supporting our economy.
(via stfuconservatives)
NO! The working poor do not CHOOSE to go hungry as a selfless act of benevolence. They are not ‘anonymous donors,’ they are TRAPPED. I have been the working poor, the unemployed poor, the ‘how-the-fuck-will-I-survive’ poor. I was NEVER a goddamn martyr for anyone. You are not a philanthropist unless it is by choice. I don’t care if they’re trying to show that the poor should be valued, what it ends up looking like is that there’s some sort of decision being made to suffer for the benefit of others, and that’s bullshit. What it looks like is ‘Oh, you should thank them for their kindness,’ not ‘Let’s change this.’
Maybe I’m missing some tone of sarcasm here? But it doesn’t look like it to me.
(via mamabirdmargaritas)
Yikes. I apologize that the quote I pulled from the book made it perhaps sound like she was saying poverty is a choice, because Ehrenreich makes it VERY clear throughout the rest of her writing that living in poverty is not a choice and is, instead, entrapment. She makes it very clear that the people she’s talking about here aren’t making these sacrifices out of some desire to help the people they’re serving, but rather out of necessity. I read this whole bit not so much as “thank the poor for their philanthropy!” as “Yeah, so this system is totally fucked because, in order for some people to get rich and comfortable, we are exploiting a very large number of people who are barely getting by as it is, and we have them do all the jobs we really don’t want to do, and have them work their fingers to the bone, but we’ll only pay them minimum wage, which isn’t enough to thrive, much less even survive, on.” And that, well, everyone who’s not in that class benefits from it too, and we should be well aware of that so we can work toward change and push harder for living wages.
Basically, I saw this quote as a somewhat more explanatory way to say that oft-spoken idea that it’s really those on the lowest rung of our class system that are supporting our capitalist economy, NOT the huge corporations who think they are.
-
It sounds like you’re just pissed off that you don’t have a monopoly on being oppressed.
…who is you?
Get out of here, you are an idiot. Dismissed.
lol and despite all that “dislike” and “distrust” other people, they still aren’t being mass murdered
so they can eat a dick
I remember seeing this a while back, and got into a few conversations on facebook about it because, as someone who’s very wary of religion/has never been religious, it confused me.
I’m really curious about the methods they used to do this study, first, so I’ll have to look into that if I can. I have this feeling that people may be inclined to lie and say they don’t hate certain groups (such as POC), even if they do, because it’s not as acceptable to overtly hate these groups anymore, yet overt hatred of people of other (or no) religions is still somewhat acceptable in society, to an extent. What I mean is, we’ve hit this point in our society where it’s still acceptable to BE racist if you can explain your racism away as something else (or even if you can’t, others who like you will do it for you)… but it’s not acceptable to APPEAR racist.
This would especially be a problem if the study was done in face-to-face surveys or interviews, thanks to that problem researchers call “social desirability.” But similar problems can also pop up with other survey methods, so I’m VERY curious how they determined who’s most often hated. The other thing about this is that it says above atheists have the most widespread hatred toward them, but nothing about the degree of hatred. Surely a good study would have taken degree into consideration as well?
The other thing is, as a non-believer? No one can necessarily find that out without talking to me (which I think is funny when I wonder if it means most people assume I’m religious until proven otherwise- when I mostly assume people aren’t religious until proven otherwise, because of the groups I associate with).
So even if anonymous people DO hate my lack of a religion, no one has really expressed that toward me. Sure, many have tried to convert me, others have tried to “prove me wrong” in ways that are completely illogical… But as a group, we’re not easy to target in ways that are actually threatening.
On the chance this Psychology Today study is accurate, it still doesn’t actually mean much right now when you look at its implications. The only thing I can think it really means for me is I’d probably have trouble running for any powerful political office… which I don’t want to do anyway.
And anyway, isn’t Psychology Today notorious for reading/interpreting/reporting studies incorrectly and coming to their own inaccurate conclusions?
-
Post reblogged from Historical Slut
but really tho i don’t like how this whole anti short skirts anti make up anti so on and so forth is being passed off as “real girl positive” or “feminist” because it’s like
when I was in high school, do you know who covered for me most of the time?
the girls with the short skirts and the bronzer and the tight tops and so on
you know, the girls who were labelled sluts
the type that taylor swfit hates on, or portrayed as “evil” in grrl focused media
when i saw movies or read books about how it was “those girls” who were mean and shit, it confused me because it’s like, the size of your skirt of the amount of make up you wear or how many hand jobs you’ve given out shouldn’t be an indicator of how good or bad you are as a person
idk it’s fucked up and i don’t like it
Could not agree more. It pisses me off when “feminist” degrade feminine things and say women buy these things because of patriarchy. They praise masculine things while degrading feminine things. Its fucked up.
-
When someone works for less pay than she can live on - when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently - then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The “working poor,” as there are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.
Barbara Ehrenreich, “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America”
I recently read this book, and while several observations and statistics stuck out to me, this quote, on the last page, I believe really sums things up quite well.
-
Post reblogged from LOOK AT THE BUTT
Refer to each other’s genitalia as the “means of production” and then refer to handjobs as “seizing the means of production”.
this one i can get behind bc handjobs
-
Quote reblogged from Struggling To Be HeardFree speech as a legal concept only guarantees you the right to speak. It doesn’t guarantee you the right to be heard, it doesn’t guarantee you the right to be agreed with, it certainly doesn’t guarantee you the right for your speech to not be challenged by someone else’s speech, and most importantly of all, it doesn’t mean you can’t suffer consequences if and when your free speech is used to cause harm to someone. Which is exactly what sexual harassment, racial slurs, and verbal bigotry are. That’s not censorship. That’s fairness.
“Not Okay”: MovieBob on Sexism and Harassment in Nerd Culture. (via jerrymuffinbutt)
always relevant
(via lettherebecramp)
-
Hi, I am writing my B.A. thesis in cont. US American culture about women's health. I am writing to you just in case you have some ideas for a research question/thesis. I have just started reading about the socio-cultural discourse of female health, concentrated on weight loss. One standpoint is that health and disease are interchangeable for women. Meaning that women are constructed as naturally diseased by patriarchy and can never fully achieve health, a purposefully unreachable state. Thanks!
Asked by quiteterribly
Oooh, that’s a very interesting thesis! Definitely would support research in that area.
Another thing that may be worth looking into (and what comes to mind for me right away when talking women and health) is how accessible and common sense health care information is slanted toward men. A good example is how the signs of a heart attack for men can be different than those for women, and yet most people are only familiar with the male symptoms. Something to think about.
But your original thesis up there sounds really fascinating and definitely something worth writing about.
-
Quote reblogged from Redhead. Mayhem. Soap.The first is that true gender equality is actually perceived as inequality. A group that is made up of 50% women is perceived as being mostly women. A situation that is perfectly equal between men and women is perceived as being biased in favor of women.
And if you don’t believe me, you’ve never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my “sexism.” My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because “everyone would know who ruled that relationship.” Perfect equality - my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part.Lucy Gillam, When Worlds Collide: Fandom and Male Privilege (via bitternessbarbie) -
Link reblogged from Tumble DC 25
That’s a great question: Breanna Manning said she’d rather die or spend her life in prison than be misgendered on the scale she is. If you support Breanna- if you say that you are Breanna Manning- you need to understand how important this is to her.
(Source: grrrltalks)
