Stevie Nicks and Florence Welch, two ladies that I would willingly allow to step on my face and choke me and yes I mean this in the gayest way possible
THIS. So hard.
We’re at the lowest tax rate in history for the wealthy and they just got a trillion more dollars last year in bonuses.
If you aren’t a millionaire or close to it, you should be wondering why taxes aren’t closer to 94% on that high bracket for the wealthy. You know, like it was in the golden years of the 50s all these rich white people dream of.
on the one hand there are many aspects of academia that should be criticized but on the other hand i’m concerned about the rise of anti-intellectualism as a tool of fascism
Hey yo what the fuck does this say in English? Because if you can’t explain in layman’s terms you’re not doing a good job of getting your point across to everyone.
1. we are right to criticize the many problems in higher education
2. fascists manipulate people into hating anyone involved in higher education for supposedly looking down on them and being worthless to the “real world.” as a result, funding for education is cut, especially for the arts, no one listens to historians who point out that history is repeating itself or speak out against the regime, freedom of speech is lost in favor of the party line, and/or climate change kills us all since no one listens to scientists.
3. therefore, when we criticize higher education, we should be careful not to contribute to fascist tropes that claim that having knowledge is bad/smug/out of touch/useless to society.
the people jokingly shipping noir and john mulaney’s assigned fursona (which i think is most if not almost all people) are absolutely hilarious but the people who are doing it seriously (the minority to be sure but they do exist) are following that law that says if no primary white m/m ship exists fanon will conjure one into being out of thin air.
mockiato asked: Toxic masculinity is different from regular masculinity because that’s when it hurts innocent men instead of just women (who deserve it). That’s why men can’t wear pink is toxic masculinity but men’s violence against women is just [static]
:
oh that’s a really good way of phrasing it—i’ve been trying to figure out why the term irks me so much, and all i could really come up with was that it implies there’s a different, healthy version of manhood that’s somehow not dependent on the exploitation of women. which is still a concern, but it doesn’t address the way the phrase gets used very specifically to describe men’s “issues,” as though these things can be separated from misogyny.
like i’m sorry for men who have been bullied or shamed or subjected to violence for displaying “feminine” traits, i really am. nobody deserves that. but what do we gain by decontextualizing these events from violence against women? why are we so determined to view gender as “toxic” only when it hurts men?
and additionally, these discussions of “toxic masculinity” very frequently end up implying there are, like, the toxic men (who stop other men from wearing pink) and the non-toxic men (who want to wear pink). and then we end up in all kinds of bizarre contradictory places because instead of recognizing gender as a construction of oppressor (men) vs oppressed (women) we try to quantify oppression as a correlate to the amount of lipstick someone wears or how long their hair is. gender isn’t some unfortunate accident that nobody enjoys, it’s a very deliberately constructed system benefitting men at the expense of women. that’s toxicity babe!
