@teaflint / teaflint.tumblr.com
As much as I love that JK Rowling is being shredded for her transphobia, I'm begging y'all as a trans man to acknowledge that the fucking Hogwarts Legacy game is fucking antisemitism personified.
Jewish people are very often erased from this shit already, ACKNOWLEDGE that the entire game's premise is about it. Jesus fuck.
Tramper: oppå taket
Nissen: tillbake
Gaver: under grana
Tomtegløgg: i krana
Hotel: trivago
The fact that someone thought I was using "unperson" as cutesy TikTok speak for "kill" instead of as a word that made its way into the English lexicon from George Orwell's 1984 is a little too on the nose I think
The Invisible Hand of Your Mom wiping your butt for you so you can pretend like you’re having Important Man Thoughts
This makes me think about how Emily Dickinson was writing her poems and suffering from chronic depression but still somehow found time to contribute to the housekeeping and do all the baking and look after her sick mother. The Brontes sisters too still had to run the house for their elderly father and addict brother (who by all accounts did nothing and slept most of the day) while writing their poems and novels. Women writers have never enjoyed this privilege. .
Jane Austen only had a small desk in a public room.
After you learn more about women writers in the past, you really understand A Room of One’s Own.
Translation: Gurl, you guys stopped 2 weeks to watch a coffin
this is modern art
Life in Code: A Personal History of Technology
by Ellen Ullman
a while back I made a post along the lines of "every STEM major should have a required 'history of science' course that's just all about previously wrong and bad scientific theories like sperm all containing homunculi and spontaneous generation" and I got a lot of responses like "but STEM majors already have gen ed requirements!" and would not understand why I was specifically asking for a course that would teach people about why science is not infallible and does not exist in a vacuum and THIS IS EXACTLY WHY ACTUALLY
The worst thing is, even if they were right (they're not), and their ideas were ethical (they're not), their "solutions" betray a massive misunderstanding of how genetics and breeding works; especially in humans. Humans are, as much as we hate to admit it, horribly inbred. Not too long ago our entire population dipped to potentially less than 1000 breeding individuals, and as a result of that our genetic diversity is not very good. On top of that, there is literally more genetic diversity inside of Africa than there is outside of it, because all groups outside of Africa stem from a few groups of migrating populations.
All this comes together to say you are not likely to find any person who is not a carrier for at least one genetic issue. So you have the option of either selecting for people who have no genetic issues, which will have such a small breeding population that your desired Übermensch will be glorified human pugs within a few generations; or selecting against specific genes, which will result in the same effect, just on a longer timeline, because one genetic disease being eradicated will never be enough. Plus, a lot of the time, genes code for more than one function, and "harmful" genes may be beneficial in certain conditions.
In short, not only are eugenisist tech bros dumb, stupid, and evil; they're also just plain wrong.
From Netflix's JWHJ 0715
i love me mama and me papa! ohohooo! how i love to play harmless goofs and gaffs and tricks with my silly jokester family!
what did i do wrong :’( i just wanted to have fun
So do the checkmarks have any benefit?
of course they do, they're public clown makeup. the largest dunce cap imaginable. a blinking neon target on your back with the bold words "kick me"
male gaze is not 'when person look sexy' or 'when misogynist make film'
death of the author is not 'miku wrote this'
I don't think you have to read either essay to grasp the basic concepts
death of the author means that once a work is complete, what the author believes it to mean is irrelevant to critical analysis of what's in the text. it means when analysing the meaning of a text you prioritise reader interpretation above author intention, and that an interpretation can hold valid meaning even if it's utterly unintentional on the part of the person who created the thing. it doesn't mean 'i can ignore that the person who made this is a bigot' - it may in fact often mean 'this piece of art holds a lot of bigoted meanings that the author probably wasn't intentionally trying to convey but did anyway, and it's worth addressing that on its own terms regardless of whether the author recognises it's there.' it's important to understand because most artists are not consciously and vocally aware of all the possible meanings of their art, and because art is communal and interpretive. and because what somebody thinks they mean, what you think somebody means, and what a text is saying to you are three entirely different things and it's important to be able to tell the difference.
male gaze is a cinematographic theory on how films construct subjectivity (ie who you identify with and who you look at). it argues that film language assumes that the watcher is a (cis straight white hegemonically normative) man, and treats men as relatable subjects and women as unknowable objects - men as people with interior lives and women as things to be looked at or interacted with but not related to. this includes sexual objectification and voyeurism, but it doesn't mean 'finding a lady sexy' or 'looking with a sexual lens', it means the ways in which visual languages strip women of interiority and encourage us to understand only men as relatable people. it's important to understand this because not all related gaze theories are sexual in nature and if you can't get a grip on male gaze beyond 'sexual imagery', you're really going to struggle with concepts of white or abled or cis subjectivities.
