You Know What Bothers Me About Princess Culture

Isn’t the fancy dresses or the girliness, I’m just not sure we should be glorifying monarchy to children so much.  Let’s have some frilly pink radical democracy or something instead.


When You Google Image “Trashy” What Do You See?

Women of color, sex workers, prole women.  What does trashy look like?  Too much makeup, bright colors, big hair, fake tans, obvious extensions or plastic surgery, unchecked aging, too much skin showing, fat bodies, tattoos, high numbers of sexual partners.

All of this shit is a big mixture of classism, misogyny, racism, whorephobia, and a lot of other horrible shit (what’s also interesting is I saw nary a dude in this google image search),

“Classy” is often used in opposition to “trashy” classy seeming to denote a person who manages to conform to bourgeois standards of morality and appearance, trashy is a person who does not.

Trashiness can be a rejection of bourgeois morality.










No, I’m serious, if women all got together and went into electrical engineering or automotive repair en masse, then ten years later people would be talking about how it was a “soft field” and it would pay proportionately less than other fields.

Likewise, if men moved en masse to bedeck themselves in sparkles and make-up, then suddenly you’d get a bunch of editorials talking about how classy they look.

None of these things are inherently masculine or feminine; none of these things inherently elevate you or drag you down. But whatever women are seen to do is automatically seen as being inherently more frivolous than anything men do. And shaming women for not pigeonholing themselves into a narrow range of acceptable “masculine” behaviours is just going to result in the goalposts getting moved once again.

This is literally what happened to basically every field women have entered. The opposite happens when men enter. Computers used to be a “woman thing” until the guys who did it got really mad about how badly their job was viewed and realized they could fix it by forcing out women.

Also happened/ is happening with the fields of biology and psychology….

I honestly wonder how much of the backlash against public education in the last generation has been due to teaching becoming a woman-dominated profession.

Fashion used to be a men’s thing. Then women got involved in the late 17/1800’s, so men went the other way because it came to be seen as “frivolous” and “anti-intellectual” to care about how you looked. Add in the homophobia that arose around that time, bam, staid bland dress. Ditto leggings/tights, that are now called attention-whoring when on men they were required to show you cared about your figure and had the money to pay for such a fitted item. 

People want to say misogyny doesn’t exist, that male privilege doesn’t exist. Look beyond “living memory” and you’ll find that’s what drives the “inexplicable reversals” society seems to make on many things. Hell, just look beyond your own society, and you’ll find out that what’s considered “for men” elsewhere is held in high esteem while here it’s scoffed at purely because it’s “for women”: 

  • Skinny jeans are the height of masculinity in several east Asian societies, rather than being seen as “gay” in the USA because of their association with femininity. 
  • Medical fields in Russia are valued like kindergarten teachers are here, because it’s women who are the doctors instead of men.
  • Love and romance are highly valued in eastern countries, because men are interested in it too—of course they would be, surely you want to share your life with someone? Here, it’s strictly a women’s subject.

The field of anthropology as a whole illustrates this.

Significantly higher proportions of females compared to males are currently entering the fields of archaeology and biological anthropology, and as this occurs, the prestige, funding, acceptance as valid kinds of science, etc, are fading quickly.

This has already occurred with linguistic anthropology and cultural anthropology. Cultural anthropology in particular went VERY quickly from being seen as a manly, scientific discipline (e.g., Franz Boas, Bronisław Malinowski) to being seen as a touchy-feely female thing.

What I get from this is that we should equally distribute ourselves among all fields until we’ve ruined absolutely everything.

math will save us! XD

When we get more straight dudes doing sex work, suddenly all the SWERFs will disappear and it’ll be respectable


How Snobbery Helped Take The Spice Out Of European Cooking




A really cool article about one of my weird niche interests (ask me about Renaissance recipes sometime, they’re great).

Since I have my main cookbook right by me at the moment, here’s a small sample of some flavour profiles from Renaissance England, prior to the shift in European cooking styles that’s described in this article–all of them from savoury recipes involving meat:

  • Rosemary, currant, ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg, brown sugar, pepper.
  • Shallot, mustard, nutmeg, honey, white wine vinegar.
  • Onion, rosemary, marjoram, thyme, savoury, bay, parsley, pistachio.
  • Sage, shallot, mace, parsley, nutmeg, pepper.
  • Parsley, mint, sage, caraway, coriander, nutmeg, capers.
  • Fennel, savoury, rosemary, thyme, bay, cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger.
  • Nutmeg, pepper, parsley, thyme, rosemary, cloves, grapes.

Hardly the plain boiled fare most people picture in traditional English cooking, right?

Renaissance food is awesome.

This has been intermittently getting a note or two and it’s awesome so I’m going to reblog it again. Everyone learn about one of my strange niche hobbies.

One of my roomates has a recipe for Viking Meatballs. It’s basically ground pork, an egg or two, and a crapload of a spice mix called powder forte. To the best of my knowledge it includes allspice, cloves, black pepper, cinnamon, and ginger. All of which the Norse would have had access to through the trade routes they set up.  You boil them up and use the super rich broth left over for soups and stews.

How Snobbery Helped Take The Spice Out Of European Cooking





“lesbians have the male gaze”/”lesbians can objectify women too” is a very convenient way for straight women to dress up “I’m uncomfortable with lesbians” in feminist language.

But girls who like girls *can* objectify women, can’t we? I’ve been told so many times I make others uncomfortable because I like girls, because I look at them funny to whatever… It’s because I’m objectifying them as much as men do, isn’t it? That’s what I’ve been told…

I’m glad you asked and I’d like to assure you that this isn’t true! The idea that lesbians have the male gaze because they’re attracted to women, or that their attraction to girls is objectification, is not only false but lesbophobic. It’s a common myth used to demonize woman/woman attraction and paint it (and the women who have it) as dangerous and harmful to other women. But our attraction to girls isn’t like that.

People conflate “objectification of women” with “attraction to women,” but this is wrong. Objectification is not ultimately about feeling attracted to someone, but about dehumanizing them. When we talk about “objectification of women,” we should be talking about misogyny and how women are reflexively seen as (sexual) objects for men’s use. Girls don’t have the same relation to this: we’re not being taught to see girls as objects for OUR use, but to see ourselves as objects for men. 

There isn’t something magical about being attracted to girls that suddenly puts us on the guys’ side of misogyny. Women don’t ever have “the male gaze” and we don’t ‘objectify women just as much as men do.’ 

On the other hand, everyone is also taught that girls’ attraction to other girls is wrong and dangerous, and that girls who like girls are wrong and dangerous. This colors how other women interact with lesbians, and it can make them feel uncomfortable and suspicious around lesbians… even when nothing is happening. :/ Straight women have a habit of blaming their simple discomfort around lesbians on lesbians – as if lesbians’ actions, and not their own lesbophobia, must always be the real cause of their discomfort – and it’s shitty and wrong.

I’m not a straight woman, and I don’t think women ever have the male gaze, but I do think that it’s possible for a person of any gender to objectify a person of any other gender, and not just for attraction reasons, the thing is men systemically objectify women, just as white people systemically objectify POC, and while I had a girlfriend once who really bought into the whole “LOL bitches, bro-fist-bump, I banged a ton of sluts” thing and treated the women she slept with that way (including me), she isn’t the one who built that system and while her behavior was shitty and problematic, it’s still ultimately a performance to gain approval from the patriarchy by showing it she could treat women the same way it did.

I think it’s also important to note that a group doesn’t have to be comprised 100% of perfect people with 100% perfect anti-oppression politics 100% of the time for that group not to deserve to be oppressed.  Like are their lesbians who objectify women? Yup, are they the systemic reason for the objectification of women?  Nope.  Does saying “Lesbians make me uncomfortable” make you a shit?  Hell yeah.


Also I think something’s gone really wrong with our way of working and exercising

Both are a punishment, a horrid means to a desirable end. This way of doing things is unsustainable and soul destroying. Like running really fast when it’s not an emotionally fraught and self flagellatory experience is fun, it’s like being on a ride and also like stretching when you’re stiff. It feels good. But instead of running for the joy of it, or skipping rope to amusing chants or trying to roll a snow ball bigger than we are, our approach to physical activity is to go to a grey place and hate ourselves for failing to attain the rock hard abs that we see as virtue, by performing dull repetitive unpleasant actions that may be the most efficient way to attain the result but suck all the pleasure from movement just as capitalism sucks all the joy from work. If we did not make our value dependent on on working or exercise we would simply tend to do these things for the joy of them. If we did not almost purposely make these experiences grey and miserable they would return to their natural tendency to be pleasurable


Also like even if I somehow managed

To become a member of the exploiter class, I wouldn’t be happy under this system. Because the stress of attaining power in this system when you’re not born to it is stressful, there’s the fear of returning to your place among the downtrodden and I cannot be truly happy when so many people suffer so much. I want luxury, freedom from want, freedom from fear of want, and I want that for everyone