Okay okay, sorry, I didn't intend to be so mesmerized by the unique swag of the scrunkly old lady detective, it was unintentional 😔🙏

Människor som klagar på de nya korkarna har inte förmågan att vända korken till sidan och borde icke lyssnas på

Reading Backlashen Me Too is frustrating. But it becomes angering when she speaks about how only 5% of rape cases actually go somewhere but if the victim tells someone about what happend to her, she's the one who gets sued and prosecuted. She's the one who has to pay damages to the man who harmed her.

there’s something endlessly hilarious to me about the phrase “hotly debated” in an academic context. like i just picture a bunch of nerds at podiums & one’s like “of course there was a paleolithic bear cult in Northern Eurasia” and another one just looks him in the eye and says “i’l kill you in real life, kevin”

Varför har ur play ett program som heter "efter me too" med fokus på killar??? Känns lite tondövt.

Man vet att man mår bättre när man skriver 2100 ord på en kväll. Är det bra ord? Nej, men det är ord.

Det ska vara ett prov om de nationella minoriteterna men 2 av fyra sidor är helt dedikerade till urfolk och samerna. Sista saken de ska göra i provet är att skriva en text om samerna. Finns ingen fråga som endast handlar om någon annan nationell minoritet. Och det ör ju inte riktigt vad vi har jobbat med.

Lite kul att både boken och provet lägger nästan allt fokus på samerna. Kapitlet hetter och ska handla om de nationella minoriteterna men fokuset ligger 100% på samerna. Det känns verkligen som att romer, svenskfinnar, judar och tornedalingar bara är ett påhäng som de måste ha med. Känns som en dålig sak att lära ut till barnen för man får verkligen känslan av att de där andra minoriteterna. De är inte så viktiga. När man läser boken och provet. Vilket inte är vad man vill lära ut.

Lite kul att både boken och provet lägger nästan allt fokus på samerna. Kapitlet hetter och ska handla om de nationella minoriteterna men fokuset ligger 100% på samerna. Det känns verkligen som att romer, svenskfinnar, judar och tornedalingar bara är ett påhäng som de måste ha med. Känns som en dålig sak att lära ut till barnen för man får verkligen känslan av att de där andra minoriteterna. De är inte så viktiga. När man läser boken och provet. Vilket inte är vad man vill lära ut.

So phrases like "people with uteruses" or "people who have periods" never really bothered me as much as more overtly dehumanizing phrases like "bleeders" or "birthing bodies", but I saw a post today talking about the abnormal symptoms women experienced after getting tear gassed protesting, that ended with something like "we don't know the full effects of tear gas on people with uteruses". And what struck me about that is that's not really correct, because female people without uteruses (either bc they were born without one or bc they had a hysterectomy) will still experience different symptoms after being tear gassed than male people. Women metabolize substances differently than men, our immune systems are different, our hormonal cycles are different, our skin has different thicknesses, etc. All of those things have potential effects on tear gas reactions, and are not dependent on whether or not we have a uterus. They're dependent on whether or not we're female. So saying "people with uteruses" when what is meant is "female people" is not really accurate. And I realized that a lot of times when people use those kinds of phrases, they aren't being accurate.

For example, I'm sure we've all seen people say things about how the repeal of Roe v Wade will harm people with uteruses/people who can get pregnant/etc. And while yes, it definitely harms those people, the full truth is that abortion bans harm *female* people, *regardless of if they can get pregnant or have a uterus.* Because female people who don't have uteruses can still get pregnant, and in those rare cases will 100% of the time need an abortion. Female people who deal with infertility and can't carry a fetus to term can still be jailed for miscarrying. Female people who are completely sterile (for whatever reason) can still be denied medications/medical treatment on the grounds that the treatment could theoretically harm a fetus. Female people who may currently have no uterus/no longer be able to get pregnant but who have had an abortion in the past will face increased stigma.

Here's another example:

It seems pretty straightforward- menstruation stigma is experienced by people who menstruate. But again, that's only half true. Period stigma is experienced by all female people, regardless of if they menstruate. Think about the fact that we are told female people should not hold political leadership because "what if a female president has PMS and starts a war", despite the fact that almost all female presidential candidates are old enough that they would have experienced menopause. Female people have their feelings dismissed because "it must be that time of the month", regardless of if they're too young to menstruate or too old or if they have a condition causing amenorrhea. Female children grow up seeing periods- a natural function of their bodies- portrayed as disgusting, dirty and gross, as making them unclean, as something to dread and fear. This affects them before they experience menarche, this affects them even if they never experience menarche. It affects all female people.

I could come up with more examples, but you get the idea. Reducing female people to singular body parts and organs inherently denies the reality of femaleness. All parts of us (both biological and social) interact with all other parts of us to form an experience that can't be understood by chopping us up and putting our individual functions under the microscope. In order to get an accurate picture you need to look at the whole (female) human.

Goth equivalent to live laugh love

Kollar på idén byrån just nu. En av dem försöker säga att det är motkultur att vara hemmafru och tradwife

people make fun of the "oh you only hate her because she's a WOMAN" crazy feminist mentality but yeah actually you guys do only hate her because she's a woman a lot of times. for every hated female tv character there's ten male tv characters who are a million times worse and still given at least the "intriguing morally grey character" treatment if not straight up praise. for every hated female celebrity in real life there's one hundred famous men who have done worse and don't get half the hate she does.

the sydney stabbings were an incel terrorist attack but once again "mental health" is the villain of the day, not blatant fucking misogyny

Kvinnan ringde 112 flera gånger – ett dygn senare mördades hon

Varför fortsätter detta hända? Inte bara i Sverige men i resten av världen?

“padme amidala died 19BBY” “Padme Amidala died in 2003”

no Padme Amidala dies every time someone in charge decides to not include the impact she had on the galaxy in any Empire-Era show

I think an underappreciated element of Leia's character is that even after days or weeks of ruthless interrogation interspersed with torture, she still had the presence of mind to identify a feature of the Stormtrooper who barged into her cell that she could mock.

Idk, I like the ghoul character designs in Fallout 3 & New Vegas a lot better than the ones in Fallout 4 and after. They used to look a lot more off-putting. They had peeling skin... they had faces melted out of proportion... they looked sorta asymmetrical... I liked how most of them were cross-eyed too. They had unique appearances that ranged from terrifying to goofy. Each face was a unique abstraction; a ghost of the character's former appearance. It made it really difficult to imagine what they looked like before they were disfigured (Moira could be an exception, but even then I couldn't recognize her after becoming a ghoul!) and it made it really easy to forget that they were still human. People in the wasteland having an implicit bias against them based on their appearance felt believable BECAUSE of how they looked! I could really empathize with these characters having angst toward their condition and toward being treated like they've been afflicted by something that makes them less human.

After Fallout 4 they ironically looked smoother and more... aestheticized. Proportionately, it's as if the bones, muscles and fat beneath their skin remained the same and only the surface was left... scarred? They are much more approachable than the other ghouls in comparison. Hell, they are even able to show facial expressions. To me, they feel more like regular people wearing latex masks. Were they made to be more... romanceable? I see how one could raise that they were modeled to fit the proportions of regular human characters so they could share facial animations, but I feel like that's irrelevant when it comes to texturing and topology. Even if the deformations looked weird, it could've added an uncanniness or uniqueness to their appearance (because the only thing that made them visually distinguishable was their costuming, hence why Hancock and Zao were memorable to me).

Fallout 4's ghouls don't feel as imaginative as 3's or New Vegas because I feel like their appearances are sort of based on a more general consensus on what "ghouls" are supposed to look according to Hollywood. All prior Fallout games were more aesthetically challenging to me, and that made the experience all the better because the ghouls looking a lot more "flawed" made them feel more human to me.