I’m currently making up a few diagrams for demonstrating standard in ways that I can without having to mishmash a buncha photos together
i’ve been trying to write about what it means to me to be femme and i can never figure out how to do it. this has been sitting in my drafts for a few days, but i think my thoughts are at least mildly coherent
being femme is about subverting femininity. examining it in its entirety and deconstructing it, choosing specific aspects of it to perform exclusively for women while denouncing and rejecting the rest. with me, there’s an air of confidence that comes naturally with being femme, with performing femininity solely for the attraction of other women and disregarding men entirely.
women don’t love each other like men love women. women don’t lust after or seek women in the same way that men do. many things that women find attractive in other women, men find ugly and repulsive and deem them as imperfections and flaws. the way that femmes present themselves aligns with the way that women find other women attractive, not the way that men find women attractive.
femmes are not “basically straight girls.” as a femme, i do worry sometimes (re: often) that when in public, other gay women will not be able to tell that i’m a lesbian no matter how hard i flag. and while it’s true that straight women probably can’t tell that i’m a lesbian, i know that gay women can. i don’t walk like a straight woman. i don’t sit like a straight woman. i don’t interact with women like a straight woman does.
and i think a lot of people fail to realize that being femme is being gender nonconforming. when femme is seen as synonymous to feminine, this assertion seems entirely incorrect. but when a woman is performing femininity exclusively for other women, when she’s stripping it bare and hand-selecting the aspects of it to embrace, how is that conforming to gender expectations?
i can’t reiterate enough that being femme is not just about presentation. obviously, presentation plays a large role, but it’s by no means the only thing. it’s more than an aesthetic. being femme is part of my identity. it’s how i experience lesbianism and how i experience womanhood.
The following suggestions may be helpful for a person who finds that they are struggling with low self-esteem:
1. It starts with a decision to be your own person. Don’t live your life to please, or to impress, someone else.
2. Try and grasp the fact we’re different and have different goals and values … And don’t be swayed by other people who criticise your dreams.
3. Don’t compare your path or journey to someone else’s journey as we start from different places and face different challenges.
4. Be kind, understanding and patient with yourself. Accept that failures and mistakes are part of everybody’s life. Also, choose to frame mistakes as learning opportunities.
5. You need to root for yourself, and seek to be your own best friend. Don’t denigrate yourself – in public, or when you’re alone.
6. Remind yourself a weakness can become a strength, in time. It takes patience effort – but, eventually, things change!
7. Make a list of what you’re good at, and keep adding to the list. Also, note the strengths that others see, and comment on, as well.
8. Treat yourself with respect and praise the things that you do well. Don’t write them off as “nothing”, or as being “no big deal”. 9. Find ways to dissipate and channel negative emotions. Don’t allow them to dictate the way you start to see yourself.
10. Spend time with those who like you, and can see your worth and value … And, ignore those who attack you, and would like to see you fail.
11. Choose to stand up for yourself, and value being more assertive. Also, decide to start to set and then enforce appropriate, healthy boundaries.
12. Admit your mistakes – then learn to laugh at yourself. It helps remove the pressure and the stress of “being perfect”!
how to achieve your goals
The same disinformation campaigns that epitomize the divisions in US
society – beliefs in voter fraud, vaccine conspiracies, and racist
conspiracies about migrants, George Soros and Black Lives Matter, to
name a few – are a source of strength for autocracies like Russia,
where the lack of a consensus on which groups and views are real and
which are manufactured by the state strengthens the hand of Putin and
his clutch of oligarchs.
In a new Harvard Berkman Center paper, Common
-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy, political scientist Henry Farrell (previously and security expert Bruce Schneier (previously)
team up to explore this subject by using information security
techniques, and come to a very plausible-seeming explanation and a set
of policy recommendations to address the issue.
Farrell and Schneier start by exploring the failures of both national
security and information security paradigms to come to grips with the
issue: Cold War-style national security is oriented around Cold War
ideas like “offense–defense balance, conventional deterrence theory, and
deterrence by denial,” none of which are very useful for thinking about
disinformation attacks; meanwhile, information security limits itself
to thinking about “servers and individual networks” and not “the
consequences of attacks for the broader fabric of democratic societies.”
Despite these limits, the authors say that there is a way to use the
tools of information security to unpick these kinds of “information
attacks” on democracies: treat “the entire polity as an information
system with associated attack surfaces and threat models” – that is, to
think about the democracy itself as the thing to be defended, rather
than networks or computers.
From there, they revisit the different disinformation styles of various
autocracies and autocratic movements, particularly the Russian style of
sowing doubt about what truth is and where it can be found (infamously,
Russia’s leading political strategist admits that he secretly funds some
opposition groups, but won’t say which ones, leaving everyone to wonder
whether a given group is genuine or manufactured – there’s some excellent scholarship
contrasting this with the style used by the Chinese state and also with
techniques used by authoritarian insurgents inside of democracies, like
In the paper’s framework, the stability of autocrats’ power requires
that the public not know how other people feel – for there to be
constant confusion about which institutions, groups and views are
genuine and which ones are conspiracies, frauds, or power-grabs. Once
members of the public discover how many of their neighbors agree that
the ruling autocracy is garbage, they are emboldened to rise up against
it. Tunisia’s dictatorship was stable so long as the law banning dissent
could be enforced, but the lack of enforcement on Facebook allowed
Tunisians to gain insight into their neighbors’ discontent, leading to
the collapse of the regime.
By contrast, democracies rely on good knowledge about the views of other
people, most notably embodied by things like free and fair elections,
where citizens get a sense of their neighbors’ views, and are thus
motivated to find solutions that they know will be widely viewed as
legitimate and will therefore be sustainable.
So when information attacks against democracies sow doubt about the
genuineness of movements and views – when Soros is accused of funding
left-wing movements, when Koch Industries’ name is all over the funding
sources of right-wing think-tanks, when politicians depend on big money,
and when Facebook ads and its engagement algorithm pushes people to
hoaxes and conspiracies – it weakens democracy in exactly the same way
that it strengthens autocracy. Without a sense of which political views
are genuine and which are disinformation, all debate degenerates into
people calling each other shills or bots, and never arriving at
compromises with the stamp of broad legitimacy.
It’s not a coincidence that the right’s political playbook is so
intertwined with this kind of disinformation and weakening of democracy.
A widely held belief on the political right is that the most important
“freedom” is private property rights, and since rich people are always
outnumbered by poor people, subscribers to this ideology hold that
“freedom is incompatible with democracy,” because in a fair vote, the
majority 99% will vote to redistribute the fortunes of the minority 1%.
In this conception, the rich are the only “oppressed minority” who can’t
be defended by democracy.
This gives rise to the right’s belief in natural hierarchies, which are
sorted out by markets, with the best people rising to the top (Boris Johnson:
“As many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, while about
2 per cent have an IQ above 130. The harder you shake the pack, the
easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top.”).
The right’s position, fundamentally, is that the “best” people should
boss everyone else around for their own good: kings should boss around
commoners (monarchists); slavers should boss around enslaved people
(white nationalists); husbands should boss around wives and kids
(Dominionists); America should boss around the world (imperialists); and
rich people should boss around workers (capitalists).
So when Reagan started cracking wise about “The nine most terrifying
words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here
to help,’” he was kicking off a long project to discredit the US and
its institutions in favor of autocrats, the mythological heroes of Ayn
Rand novels whose singular vision was so true and right that it didn’t
need peer review, checks and balances, or anyone who might speak truth
to power. He was initiating the process that led the Trump
administration’s army of think-tankies to dismantle the US government’s multibillion-dollar institutions
charged with defending us from food poisoning, plutonium spills, unsafe
workplaces, tornadoes and starvation: in the autocrat’s view of the
world, these institutions’ word cannot be taken at face value, because
every institution is just a pawn for its bosses’ and workers’ personal
ambitions, featherbedding and pocket-lining.
Unsurprisingly then, Farrell and Schneier’s recommended countermeasures
for disinformation campaigns cut directly against the right’s most
cherished policies: get rid of Citizens United and the idea that secret
money can fund US political campaigns; limit financial secrecy and make
it harder for anyone to claim that US political movements are the
inauthentic expression of manipulative foreign disinformation campaigns.
Alongside financial transparency, the authors suggest that vigorous
antitrust enforcement, possibly with reclassification of online services
as public utilities, would help curb the deployment of ranking
algorithms that elevate “engagement” over all else, leading to spirals
that drive users to ever-more-extreme and unfounded views and
communities (weirdly, this is the one highly selective instance in which
the right is calling for a return to pre-Reagan antitrust fundamentals).
Worryingly Asbetos is being made into homepoathic wands and reki stones. Most worryingly claiming to cure CANCER, which Asbestos causes.
Being sold to many people under the intentions of “bring a bonding action between one and the subject of one’s desires“ and claiming that it’s the “etheric blueprint to correct imbalances and blockages that could manifest as physical disease and to heal cellular memory, one of the best stones for rousing the kundalini energies“
Chrysotile a type of Asbestos is quickly becoming one of the most requested minerals in reiki and crystal healing.
And it’s not the only type of Asbestos being sold as a healing crystal.
Above is Richterite, it’s known to be as dangerous as any of the other Asbestos in the six categories and is being sold to people promising ironic cures for liver, pancreas, kidney or breast cancer.
Above is Tigers Eye, everyone knows it looks cool but it is also Asbestos and although polished Health Protection Agency in the U.K., claim these are still dangerous.
While some types of asbestos may be more hazardous than others, all are dangerous. Leading health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classify all types of asbestos as cancer-causing substances.
The following are all a type of asbestos:
chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, winchite, suglite, richterite, actinolite and anthophyllite.
All the identified forms of asbestos can cause asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, laryngeal cancer and other serious diseases and will not cure any form of cancer.
Some agencies, such as the Health Protection Agency in the U.K., claim amphibole varieties of asbestos are the most dangerous forms.
The EPA has abandoned projects aiming to identify which asbestos fiber types are the most toxic, citing the overall regulation of asbestos and asbestiform minerals as a more pressing priority.
EXCUSE ME WTF
Literally my reaction too, for just $20 you can pay to have a lump of raw asbestos shipped to you to cure you of various forms of cancer.
Peeps, if you didn’t know, asbestos is MINED. It’s a MINERAL that – like arsenic, yes, arsenic is mined too – many producers continued to mine despite knowing that ‘asbestos lung’ was a thing among their workers since basically the start. A great many mined substances can be harmful to you. Just because it comes out of the earth doesn’t mean you can safely hold it in your hand or have it in your home. Be aware!
Well said and thank you for reblogging and adding your comments 😀
Didn’t know Tiger’s Eye was a form of asbestos…
Many people don’t. Tigers Eye is formed when crocidolite asbestos is replaced by quartz fibers, because it’s still asbestos based I’d not recommend smashing your tigers eye any time soon. But I will add it isn’t directly asbestos once the quartz replaces.
You can see the fibers on this piece of unpolished Tigers Eye below and why it’s still classed under asbestos.
Asbestiform is a mineralogical term referring to minerals that can be separated into fibers. Many regulatory definitions define a 3:1 length-to-width ratio as a fiber. The EPA states that all Asbestiform is as dangerous.
Ok I was curious about this and wanted to know if this was true. While I have not learned much about chrysotile or tigers eye, I learned a bit about serpentine, the group chrysotile belongs to. And the short answer I have come to is: serpentine is probably not dangerous to your health unless you inhale the asbestos fibers in it.
See, the biggest danger from asbestos is inhaling the crystal fibers, but this happens when the rocks are broken or eroded. So a polished stone or intact rock probably won’t hurt you unless you smash it with a hammer.
That being said, if you are still worried about the asbestos, perhaps limit your contact with asbestos-filled rocks. Educating yourself about the chemical composition of your minerals and stones is important, especially since many of them contain other nasty compounds.
i’ve stopped trash talking comic sans after learning the font is actually one of the only dyslexia-friendly fonts that come standard with most computers and i advocate for others doing the same
In the event that you would like to continue hating Comic Sans, other dyslexia-friendly alternatives include Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, Century Gothic and Trebuchet.
Random fact: Verdana is one of the few fonts which was specifically designed to be as easy to read as possible, even at smaller type sizes. It was designed this way for use on screen, but the same principles apply in print too. This is part of why some Universities use Verdana as their default font for documents.
“In the event that you would like to continue hating Comic Sans” is one of the best things I’ve ever read on this website
I’ll take Comic Sans over Arial any day.
Century Gothic and Trebuchet are both quite handsome typefaces.
I’m partial to Century Gothic as well. It’s serif, but not boring.
There’s also a dyslexic font designed especially for dyslexic people to read.
You can install on your tablets, laptops and browers etc, so not only can you change things like documents into it, you can change websites into that font as well!
I’m sure you’re bright enough to do a google search, but since I’m dumb enough to forget to post a link, here it is. Better late than never
I default to arial for this reason, but I will now be defaulting to verdana or dyslexie. nice.
I don’t think I have dyslexia but that dyslexie font was the easiest fucking thing to read ever. Books should be written in that shit.
For computer reading, when you mix up lines of text, there’s a web browser app called Beeline Reader. It looks like this
The colors are also customizable, to an extent and while I don’t have dyslexia, I have adhd which makes reading large amounts of text harder and this helps A LOT.
I have literally never been able to read an entire paragraph without having to go back and figure out which line I’ve missed oh my god
BeeReader is actually going to change my life today