"Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: ‘You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgements. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society."
— Doris Lessing (The Golden Notebook)
(Source: nemoomnianovit, via wholesomeobsessive)
"
As many as 15 percent of freshmen at America’s top schools are white students who failed to meet their university’s minimum standards for admission, according to Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education. These kids are “people with a long-standing relationship with the university,” or in other words, the children of faculty, wealthy alumni and politicians.
According to Schmidt, these unqualified but privileged kids are nearly twice as common on top campuses as Black and Latino students who had benefited from affirmative action.
"
—
Ten myths about affirmative action (via linzyxxxxx)
well well well look at that.
(via piddlebucket)
OH HEY
OH HEY COLLEGE REPUBLICANS/YAF
OH HEY WOULD YA LOOK AT THIS
(via viviopsis)
George W. Bush was the poster child for this.
(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)
I wish I had said this during my first semester to a girl who said I only got into the school (not Antioch) because of affirmative action. Fuck you frenemy. You just couldn’t deal with people being as smart as/smarter than you.
(via dressesandyarn)
(Source: sociolab, via dressesandyarn)
wut4:
SARAH: Daddy, were you in the shower?
DAD: Yes, I was in the shower.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: I was dirty. The shower gets me clean.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why does the shower get me clean?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: Because the water washes the dirt away when I use soap.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why do I use soap?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: Because the soap grabs the dirt and lets the water wash it off.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why does the soap grab the dirt?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: Because soap is a surfactant.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why is soap a surfactant?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: That is an EXCELLENT question. Soap is a surfactant because it forms water-soluble micelles that trap the otherwise insoluble dirt and oil particles.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why does soap form micelles?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: Soap molecules are long chains with a polar, hydrophilic head and a non-polar, hydrophobic tail. Can you say ‘hydrophilic’?
SARAH: Aidrofawwic
DAD: And can you say ‘hydrophobic’?
SARAH: Aidrofawwic
DAD: Excellent! The word ‘hydrophobic’ means that it avoids water.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why does it mean that?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: It’s Greek! ‘Hydro’ means water and ‘phobic’ means ‘fear of’. ‘Phobos’ is fear. So ‘hydrophobic’ means ‘afraid of water’.
SARAH: Like a monster?
DAD: You mean, like being afraid of a monster?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: A scary monster, sure. If you were afraid of a monster, a Greek person would say you were gorgophobic.
(pause)
SARAH: (rolls her eyes) I thought we were talking about soap.
DAD: We are talking about soap.
(longish pause)
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why do the molecules have a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: Because the C-O bonds in the head are highly polar, and the C-H bonds in the tail are effectively non-polar.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Because while carbon and hydrogen have almost the same electronegativity, oxygen is far more electronegative, thereby polarizing the C-O bonds.
SARAH: Why?
DAD: Why is oxygen more electronegative than carbon and hydrogen?
SARAH: Yes.
DAD: That’s complicated. There are different answers to that question, depending on whether you’re talking about the Pauling or Mulliken electronegativity scales. The Pauling scale is based on homo- versus heteronuclear bond strength differences, while the Mulliken scale is based on the atomic properties of electron affinity and ionization energy. But it really all comes down to effective nuclear charge. The valence electrons in an oxygen atom have a lower energy than those of a carbon atom, and electrons shared between them are held more tightly to the oxygen, because electrons in an oxygen atom experience a greater nuclear charge and therefore a stronger attraction to the atomic nucleus! Cool, huh?
(pause)
SARAH: I don’t get it.
DAD: That’s OK. Neither do most of my students.
I used to have conversations like this with my dad. Not THAT complex, but I was clearly not as tenacious as Sarah.
(Source: anthrojoyce, via mymilkspilt)
nudiemuse:
cunthulhu:
pixiemoon42:
dwntotheundrgrnd:
thatqueeryoungbuck:
miseryxchord:
Queer Porn Star Accused of Pedophilia for Breastfeeding Baby
By Diane Anderson-Minshall
Weeks after queer porn star Madison Young had her baby, she created an art exhibit titled “Becoming MILF.” The concept, according to Jezebel.com, was to explore how Young now embodies a contradiction, the dichotomy to end all dichotomies — that of the Madonna and the whore. At the show’s opening, she served up self-made breast-milk shakes and displayed a baby quilt made of burp cloths and porn star panties. Turns out not every feminist porn star agrees. According to Salon.com, a series of sex worker Twitter wars ensued, the controversy tapping into “culture-wide mommy issues.”
Porn star Furry Girl (who is known for her, um, stage name–like features) criticized Young for publicly breast-feeding, tweeting that only “creeps and pedophiles” are interested in seeing a porn star breast-feed and insinuated that exposing her child to such an audience was abusive. Girl called Young a “a revolting person” and dubbed her defenders “baby fetishists” and “pedos.”
Of course Young (née Tina Butcher) is already a well-known feminist porn star, director, author, and the founder of Femina Potens, an ever-evolving, queer and trans nonprofit gallery and performance space in California that the San Francisco Chronicle calls “the most happening art space in the city; a revolution in art and sex.” She’s curated the gallery for years, mixing envelope-pushing women’s sexuality exhibitions and spoken word shows from lesbians like Annie Sprinkle with less kinky feminist projects from literati like Michelle Tea. Young’s shown up on such outlets as IFC and the History Channel and in MSNBC’s Brian Alexander’s book America Unzipped, which has a whole chapter on her art and work.
So what was this controversial display of pedophilia that Furry Girl imagines? According to Salon, Young posed for a black-and-white photograph dressed up like Marilyn Monroe while clutching her daughter to her bare breast, nonchalantly breast-fed on a video, and then announced that she would nurse live and in person at an upcoming event meant to promote “health awareness for our queer, kinky, and sex positive communities.”
At the event itself, Young discussed breast health, while other presenters talked about breast cancer, antiretroviral drugs, and safe sex. “It wasn’t a sex party; it was an adult sex-ed class hosted by sex workers,” writes Salon’s Tracy Clark-Florey.
Furry Girl, an actress in vegan porn, tweeted that context is at the root of her argument, though she no longer wants to comment on the debacle. Meanwhile, Young returned to social media in hopes of ending the Twitter mommy sex wars: “The only one sexualizing this image of me breastfeeding is you. Which makes me feel truly disgusted and violated.”
Our society is seriously screwed up in sexualizing a female body’s parts that are being used in a way they’re meant to function, to the point it feels it needs to control and limit their use for that function, based on the last couple generations being indoctrinated to believe that babies should drink formula because it’s healthier, because breasts = sex toys, therefore breastfeeding = dirty.
Madison Young is a personal hero of mine and this exhibition and the talk surrounding it makes me perversely excited about the possible conversations that this will generate on an academic level (sex education- sex workers- the intersection of porn and motherhood- the whore and the madonna- the woman and the lady- mother and child- spectacle and the private- social media and personal relationships-)
but on a more personal level it bothers me that people are making one dimensional statements about Madison and what she is trying to achieve- for me she is actually delving into more complex systems of gender, power, relationships surrounding women and how these are still areas of controversy.
still i think i’m actually going to write more about this later on-sies- hopefully post it somewhere
I enjoy all of this commentary. And agree with it. I also hate that female breasts in general are made to be so sexual while male breasts are not. Women are made sexual objects, their bodies are made objects so when a child is involved (even though in this case it is about are and NUTRITION), it becomes pedophelia.
People irritate me.
WHAT THE FUCK?!?!
I really like what i’ve seen from Madison Young, and this is dumb shit.
I watched this unfold on Twitter when it happened. I used to support some of Furrygirl’s work but this was so awful. So awful. I can’t support anything someone who is okay to attack people straight up like that does. A lot of her tweets were ad hominem attacks on people and just disgusting to me.
The things she said to anyone disagreeing with her statements were sick and ugly. I was so sad.
I get the initial reaction. A couple of times last summer I saw little kids running around naked and thought ‘oh! No!’
And then I thought, well, THAT’S fucked up. That my first thought is naked = sex. Even on a two year old.
That is not ok. Look, guys, I was felt up as a kid, I am so totally not ok with paedophilia (not that you have to have been felt up to not be ok with it, jeez). But you know what else i’m not ok with? A society where we pre-suppose sexuality where there is none. Where innocents - women, men, children, everyone else - have to adjust their behaviour to not be blamed for the horrifying actions of a few.
HOW is this a problem, but Bratz dolls are not sexualising kids. A boob is FOR FEEDING BABIES. It also happens to be well sexy. But it’s not like the minute someone becomes a mother, they are Pure and/or Frumpy, and therefore not sexual.
It makes me so MAD.
(Source: advocate.com)
jasievangesen:
coolest thing ever. I always described it as “clean dirt” when I was little.
(Source: , via dressesandyarn)
