alleycat4eva

[alleycat4eva]

Before and after staining the wood:

Source

[alleycat4eva]

Masterpost of gender-neutral language used for women but not men

Some say that gender-neutral language is not sexist, nor does it erase women. Here are some examples that prove otherwise, revealing the bias for women, and not men, to surrender linguistic boundaries.

(I’ve been collecting examples since I made this post. Thanks to all who submitted! I will keep adding on.)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

[alleycat4eva]

Cryptozoology is my favourite kind of fake science stuff. Wish there was also cryptobotany, like mothman but its just a really big fern in the middle of a field with literally nothing else around it , that spawned in the dead of night, might have killed a few people and never shows up in photos, and no one is sure its even real

[alleycat4eva]

me looking at my research, my research looking at me, me looking at my research, my research looking at me, me looking at my resea

[alleycat4eva]

you want to buy some candy. it comes in a plastic bag. inside the bag are more plastic bags, one for each individual candy. inside the individual bags there is another small piece of plastic from when the candy was molded. it's not like a bag of candy is that absurd of a thing to want. if you want a peanut butter cup, even if you make it at home, what does peanut butter come in? a jar made of plastic. the chocolate is also wrapped in plastic. everything is wrapped in useless layers of garbage all the time and it's driving me crazy. i can REMEMBER when a much higher number of snack foods were still wrapped in paper or cardboard. and who knows if that's any better in the short term but in the long term i'd rather that than the death particles fucking everywhere. and another thing, WHY DO GARBAGE BAGS EXIST? WHY ARE THEY PLASTIC? THEY EXIST TO GET THROWN AWAY! WHY ARE MESTRUAL PADS INDIVIDUALLY WRAPPED IN PLASTIC! WHY! WHY ISN'T IT EVEN AN OPTION TO NOT HAVE THAT, AND WHY IS THE BIG BAG THEY'RE ALL IN ALSO PLASTIC, AND WHY IS ALL THE CLOTHING PLASTIC, AND

[alleycat4eva]

I'm over the term "gender equality", and the way in which it is being used and advocated for by the mainstream, status-quo left.

"Men and women are equal" operates under the bias that men are the default standard of equality, which women are then sometimes required or expected to meet. Usually statements like "women are just as strong as men", "women are just as capable as men in sports" act as support.

It intentionally is meant to be cheered on as liberating, but the reality is it's a derivative of "I don't see race I just see people", "no race but the human race", "not disabled just differently-abled", etc. It's a form of sexism that ignores sexism. It's "I am going to ignore biological differences based on sex" when the reality is being of the female sex shapes both my material and lived reality in extremely complex ways and can have dangerous consequences when ignored.

The average woman is not is strong as a man and it often takes a deliberate amount of persistence, training, and/or testosterone injections for us to come close to or meet the male default. "The muscle strength of women indeed, is typically reported in the range of 40 to 75% of that of men". The average man could easily kill and overpower me, and if I were an athlete a man who trained equally to me would defeat me in competition.

Women are 47% more likely than men to be injured in a car accident. Cars were designed for male drivers. In 2011 was when "female" crash dummies were introduced into measuring car safety in the US, however sometimes organizations in the US and UK just used "scaled down male dummies" to test car safety for women. As this article explains, we are not scaled-down men. We have different muscle mass distribution. We have lower bone density. There are differences in vertebrae spacing. Even our body sway is different. And these differences are all crucial when it comes to injury rates in car crashes. And what about pregnant women?

We have different needs and different experiences than males and the world around is us designed with males in mind - from housing to automobiles, to entire economic systems. 85% of women will eventually be mothers. When women take maternal leave to care for a newborn while the man continues to work (or returns shortly later), he effectively advances his career and over time earns more promotions and pay. His schedule is to focus on his career growth and then come home for a few hours in the evening to play with their child (or play videogames). Mothers pay a significant wage penalty for having children from being months out of the labor market.

This list could really go on.

"Gender equality" is utilized by men to distract women from focusing on only women's rights and needs to men's rights and needs. It's used to shoehorn in arguments of "men too" and sympathizing with men on "men's mental health" (while neglecting the fact that men are overwhelmingly and in shocking numbers responsible for violence done to both sexes - and are additionally unlikely to want to work on themselves mentally).

Reframing and enfolding "violence against women", "women's rights", "male violence", "female liberation", and "women's oppression" into the vague language of "gender equality" is a deliberate act of obfuscating the power dynamics between the sexes - in which men globally exploit and oppress women on the axis of sex.

And as vague language, carves a place for people to have the opportunity to shift the responsibility and blame onto women and girls for the suffering that men wield onto their own sex.

Women and girls do have advantages and strengths over men and boys due to our biological differences - yet this, too, goes ignored under the vague concept of "gender equality" and the cultural belief system it evokes, which treats man as the mold that women should fit.

#women #feminism #second wave #sex #gender #gender equality

[alleycat4eva]

it actually scares me when people like "THE SCIENCE!!!! THE SCIENCE!!!!!" and then the "science" in question is one study conducted in 2013 with a sample size of 22, a dropout rate of 30%, and it has never been replicated. like oh my god research literacy needs to be part of our general education so bad because what the fuck is going on guys

[alleycat4eva]

you ever meet a man and u wanna be like sir ur porn addiction brain rot is dripping out of ur ear

[alleycat4eva]

psych majors with five act tragedy levels of intellectual hubris are so funny. Hi, I'm twenty one years old, and I've been taking a couple classes a semester for the past couple years: now that we've established I have seen the divine truth of all things, here's the worst take you've ever heard.

[alleycat4eva]

me after sleeping ljke shit for the 10,497th day in a row: this is good actually because now i'll be really tired when i go to bed tonight

[alleycat4eva]

Christmas as a cultural icon is starting to get really dystopian in a climate sense, december has historically been a time of year in which there would be snow in a significant portion of europe and north america, and the fact that its not even icy this time of year and all the christmas songs and decorations reference a time of year that will likely never exist in the same way again in my life time is so strange.

[alleycat4eva]

[alleycat4eva]

your life is not meaningless, you just haven't seen the sea in a while

[alleycat4eva]

the fact that most (young) internet users’ politics boils down to “whatever is popular online” for over a decade at this point is not lost on me, and also not on the people who exploit it.

[alleycat4eva]

there is something so infuriating abt non-palestinian arabs and muslims trying to center themselves in conversations about israel and palestine. there are 14 million jews in the world and you are in egypt where approximately 3 of them live. the "zionist entity" isnt oppressing you bestie

[alleycat4eva]

[alleycat4eva]

What's your take on the settlements in the West Bank though?

Short answer: arrrrggghhhh

Longer answer:

I wrote and deleted a whole thing when I found this video of the history that I think it worth watching because it helps people visualize what's going on and how entangled Palestinian and Jewish settlements are. It's part of a series, and the whole thing is worth watching if you want to familiarize yourself with the basics although I think it has a bias and omits consideration of some of the bigger strategic aspects at play.

Politically, the West Bank is a jumble of ideas about people, power and land and all the ways these can be combined. There are several possible outcomes of the current conflict: a single state, a single state with enclaves, or 2 independent states. A state could be Jewish, Muslim, or secular with a spectrum of population and power balances. All of these options vary in popularity. Like any good foreigner, I favor a solution that is locally unpopular on both sides - a 2 state solution. And I think the idea of an international force running Jerusalem is pretty good too. The '2 states for 2 peoples' camp did gain ground in the early aughts though, so it may still take effect.

The West Bank settlers tend to be one of 3 types:

religious zealots who want all of Judea and Samaria for Jews because God gave it to them

Israelis looking for cheap housing and a subsidized quality of life as long as there are enough guards to ensure they feel secure

Americans who want to recreate the Wild West feeling but with Judaism (not kidding, they're a sizeable and loud chunk of this group)

The proportions wax and wane depending on government support. If Israel doesn't support a settlement with infrastructure and armed guards, the more radical elements populate it. But subsidies have also drawn in people for more prosaic reasons. You don't need to be too religious or radical, just confident that one day this land that exists outside of Israel's national boundaries (but has occupied since 1967) will be yours because it's not like anyone else might want it... wait, that is radical isn't it? Which is why I hate the idea of these settlements.

The process of radicalization happens on both sides, and I don't think people realize that this is a central aspect of the conflict. I hear commentary that Israel's campaign in Gaza will breed an entire new generation of radicals, but little thought is apparently given to the impact Hamas' attack had on Israelis. By targeting civilians and killing indiscriminately - even notable peace activists like Vivian Silver - it gives more radical Israelis justification for an increasingly hardline stance. The intense antisemitism of the Islamist movements fuels increasingly anti-Arab sentiment and actions. Few Israelis will look at the Oct 7 attacks and think these are people they want to live next door to. That is the desired effect of terrorism, after all - to strike terror into your heart. The reactionary rage comes later.

A notable feature in this conflict is that more moderate people are neutralized - often violently - by extremists on their own side. Signing a peace treaty with Israel has been hazardous to the health of multiple high-ranking officials. Hamas splintered from the PA because the PA made compromises with Israel, and if Hamas gets torn down, the PIJ is waiting in the wings with even harsher, hardline politics. Moderates in Israel have been pushed aside by increasingly right-wing governments. Any attempts at compromise are met with radicals who try to supplant moderates in power, or test the limits and will of those in power. So, the West Bank settlers are to Netanyahu what the PIJ are to Hamas. After Oct 7, WB settlers had easy access to retaliate against their Arab neighbours and, in turn, we see growing support for Hamas over the PA in the West Bank among Arabs as life sours as the conflict boils over. And so over time those currently in power are one step more radical than those who came before, and they are in turn under pressure from those who are a step beyond.

The West Bank faction don't just take action in the West Bank, they're the same faction that pushed for Israel to declare itself a specifically 'Jewish homeland' in 2018, which was a slap in the face for Arab Israelis and shifts Israel away from democratic values and toward a religious nation state, which makes peace ever more elusive. (Vox suprisingly has a fairly informative article explaining why people are critical of this move.)

So how do the settlers ruin the prospects for peace? The boundaries of Israel have shifted, mostly expanding outward, following numerous wars in the region. The borders of 1948 and 1967 aren't the same. And Palestinians are left negotiating for less and less land with every iteration. Now... Israel has largely fought defensive wars and it's not uncommon for the winning side to seize disputed territory when they've won the war. However, the Oslo accords carve out the West Bank to an almost uninhabitable degree for Palestinians living there. Maintaining enough security for Jewish settlers means operating under military law, with checkpoints and restricted roads that make economic development impossible. This is largely a result of settler actions, forcing the Israeli government to include them in their negotiations. One look at a map demonstrates how convoluted any separation would be. Settlers have, in essence, used the Palestinian tactic of refusing to declare their statehood to their advantage.

For anyone confused about how this works, Palestine has never and does not exist as a state. It has 'leaders' and 'de facto leaders' but not a president. Palestinian might, roughly, define a group of people, but Palestine isn't a real place you can find on a map. This has served groups like the PLO very well. By refusing to accept statehood, or even accept Israel as a state, or even accepting the war of 1948 is over... they are hard to pin down in negotiations. Thus their hopes that they can somehow win a better settlement in the future is kept alive. But it also means that settlers can move into the West Bank because it's not the country of Palestine, it's not anything, it's just Israeli occupied territory that is currently under dispute.

The kindest interpretation of this view I can give is 'if Arabs can live on Israeli land then why can't Jews live on Arab land'. Israel at some points has encouraged this settlement process, but is starting to find it expensive to police and politically limiting. It showed up as a major issue in the Abraham accords, with a proposed land swap for alternate territory to be given to Palestine in order to prevent the unpopular move of having to relocate several hundred thousand Israelis. But of course the land swap idea isn't popular either.

Personally, if Palestine decided to declare its independence along the green line - I'd support that move. I think Israel should as well and signal to its settlers that they would need to decide whether they want to relocate or live under a Palestinian government. Now, if a strictly Muslim state is going be created by hardliners, this won't work well, but if Israel can live with a 20% Muslim population then why can't Palestine live with a 20% Jewish population? Well, I know why... but I still don't think peace needs to be delayed because a bunch of people decided to ignore international law.

#free gaza #west bank #israel #palestine #settler colonialism