Social Rants

OMG I want to just shave my head bald.

My hair is this giant, poofy, explosion of curls. Just frizzy, uncontrollable, curls. And because its so thick and there’s so damn much of it, if the temperature hits even 75 my scalp starts hurting from the mat of sweaty hair.

Then it rains, and I’m “Oh thank gods, it cooled off so I don’
t have to wash my hair every five seconds to stop the sweating.” Then my hair laughs at me and uses the humidity to turn into a giant wall of frizz enveloping my head.

I can’t wear it short, then the curls get really tight and I practically can’t run a comb through them. Long and they just have more room to expand into the universe.

Why did no one teach me how to deal with my hair other than straightening it!? I need someone to come over and give me a month long training course on how to fight my hair into submission so I can look cute with it down instead of like I’m going to turn men into stone.

26 May 2013 ·

• Tags
• hair
• curly hair
• ugh

wretchedoftheearth:

altonym:

wretchedoftheearth:

altonym:

wretchedoftheearth:

altonym:

wretchedoftheearth:

i mean i know this is peak fatty but if i had to give up boys for the rest of my life or stuffed crust pizza i think i’d have to give up boys

I’d pick cheese over love

I really would

I mean like, there’s a chance I could fail at love and never be with anyone

but cheese will always be there

i mean love is good and all but

cheese has never hurt me

cheese has never made me cry anything but tears of joy

cheese is always there when i need it.

seriously like

who needs a wedding when you can have wensleydale

who needs a car when you can have camembert

this could probably be used by some anti-gay conservatives as an example of how the gay agenda includes marrying cheese or something

#and it would be true

#it’s a slippery slope towards dairy

25 May 2013 ·

crackerhell:

alexandraerin:

mattbellamysfolds:

“if i’m a person of color, i’m allowed to hate white people!!!!’

“if i’m gay, i’m allowed to hate straight people!!!!”

“if i’m a woman, i’m allowed to hate men!!!”

“if i’m trans*, i’m allowed to hate cis people!!!”

The problem with this post—one of the problems with this post—is what we might call the logic of allowance. In point of fact, the reverse of those statements is true across the board.

White people are allowed to hate people of color, and we do, with wide-reaching results. Straight people are allowed to hate gay people, and they do, with wide-reaching results. Men are allowed to hate women, and they do, with wide-reaching results. Cis people are allowed to hate trans* people, and they do, with wide-reaching resutlts. These hatreds are allowed, encouraged, supported, and upheld on systemic and personal levels. 

The “reverse hatreds” being cited with such gleeful derision (this is hateful post, by the way… whether you agree with its sentiments or not, this post mocks people and kicks them when they’re down and I’m very disappointed to see a blog that I don’t think of as hateful reblogging it) aren’t actually allowed. They aren’t tolerated. They are slapped down. Just observe on Tumblr how a person of color who is not suitably deferential to white people… and this is a moving goalpost, often an invisible goalpost that is erected on the fly specifically to pounce on and victimize a particular blogger… observe how they get treated. Observe the reaction to trans* people who don’t bow to cis sensibilities.

And some might say “WELL WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE DIE CIS SCUM OR DEMAND WHITE PEOPLE EXPLAIN WHY THEY’RE FOLLOWING YOU”, but here’s the thing: those things are reactions. And I’m sure the person who made this post and everyone who co-signs it would say “well, those reactions are just as bad as the actions they’re a response to”.

First of all, they’re not, on any level. You might believe in your heart of hearts that they’re not good, but there’s a severe imbalance of power and a resulting imbalance in effect. If a tractor trailer hauling several tons of cargo has a head-on collision with a smart car… well, we could say that they both hit each other. But that descriptor tells us nothing about the aftermath.

Or to use a better example: a pedestrian gets struck in the crosswalk by a car. Might the pedestrian have looked both ways or exercised more care to avoid the accident? Yes, possibly. But the impact of the car on the pedestrian matters more than the impact of the pedestrian on the car, a fact which is actually recognized by law.

Second… if they’re just as bad, well, then why do so many ~*good progressives*~ expend so much time and energy addressing only half of the problem? You can believe that two wrongs don’t make a right, but by addressing the second wrong, you’re implying that one wrong is just hunky-dory. And the wrong you seek to redress says a lot about the actual values that guide your hand.

You could say hate isn’t a Christian value. How about recognizing when someone is in pain and giving them balm? Is that a Christian value? Is it a Christian value to see a scream of rage and frustration and blame the person who gave vent to it?

Jesus might as well have said “I was powerless and you did not empower me, I was defenseless and you did not protect me, I was marginalized, and you did not center me.” when he spoke of physical hunger and thirst.

The hatred society directs at “the least among us” is lethal; the hatred reflected back is an embarrassing reminder of the cloud of hostility and threats society forces them to live under. That’s why we’re so uncomfortable with the latter, even as we blithely accept all but the most blatant and egregious examples of the former, and try to rationalize away or deny what we can’t ignore.

why shouldn’t I be allowed to hate people who are trying to kill me again i’ve never gotten a good reason for this

(via recreationalsociologist)

23 May 2013 ·