It’s suddenly striking me how weird it is that the entire impetus for the plot of Mean Girls is… homophobia? lesbophobia?
The thing Janis hates Regina for — what motivates her to contrive to “ruin [Regina’s] life” — is that Regina started a rumor that she, Janis, was a lesbian.
Not just that her one-time best friend started [a nasty rumor] about her.
Not that her one-time best friend outed her.
But that the [nasty, false rumor] was that she was a lesbian.
And then that keeps being a thing she’s insecure about for the rest of her adolescence.
All her friends at school stop talking to her, presumably because they think she’s a lesbian. It’s so bad that she has to drop out of school.
In high school, she doesn’t want Cady to even know about the lesbian rumor, because it’s so awful for people to think you might be a lesbian, right?
Her best friend is openly gay, but the possibility of anyone even thinking she might be a lesbian is socially unacceptable.
But no one says anything about that. No one questions it.
No one’s like, “Why are you so mad that people might think you’re a lesbian? Isn’t your best friend gay? Why would people like you less because you’re a lesbian?”
How weird is that?
Then at the end, she ends up with a dude. Like, wouldn’t it have been better if she turned out to actually be a lesbian who felt betrayed by being outed by a person she thought was her friend? What if the problem wasn’t “fear of being a lesbian,” but rather “fear of being hurt by people you trust?”
The movie is so uncritical of the perspective that being a lesbian is the worst thing that can happen to a preteen/teen girl. Like, we’re supposed to just accept that having people think you’re a lesbian is worth ruining lives over.
I’m so uncomfortable with this right now.
I took the bait. I couldn’t help but open an email with the subject line: “You’re afraid of this pro-choice argument” Afraid? I’m afraid of a lot of things. Actually, five things: spiders, asteroid…
Excellent counter to the bodily-autonomy argument!
ahahaha alright I’ll bother to tackle these because they’re 100% bullshit and don’t counter anything.
1. Your analogy is flawed because it presupposes that the relationship between mother and child is no more significant, and carries with it no more responsibility, than the relationship between a person and some random stranger in a hospital bed.
so a pregnant person has all of the responsibility for the fetus’s life, but a person doesn’t have responsibility for a random stranger’s life? what happened to the pro-life stance of ‘all lives matter’? and wouldn’t that mean that it’s the pregnant person’s responsibility to worry about her fetus/pregnancy and not some random pro-lifers butting into their life?
2. Your analogy is flawed because it leaves out an important detail: how did the singer become ill in the first place?
”[…]This singer came down with a terrible sickness. You might feel pity for him, but you didn’t cause him to be sick. You didn’t put him in this state. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. The same cannot be said when a child is conceived.”
going along with the singer analogy, even if you stabbed the singer multiple times and caused him to need you as life support, you still don’t have an obligation to have him use your body without your consent. the same goes for a fetus - even if a person’s actions led to the fetus residing in their uterus, that still does not give the fetus the right to stay there.
3. Your analogy is flawed because, when framed properly, it doesn’t strengthen your moral position — it defeats it.
The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did. He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified? You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion. And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion.
yes, actually, it is justified for a parent to refuse giving their child an organ donation, this has already been decided by courts to be acceptable multiple times. it’s also hilarious how you call things like organ donations and blood transfusions “mild inconveniences” as if they have no impact on someone’s health whatsoever and no other health issues could complicate the situation.
4. But, no matter how you frame the hypothetical, it is still flawed because it ignores one crucial thing: natural order.
this entire section is a bunch of drivel and has absolutely no bearing on laws or human rights.
6. But the bodily autonomy argument is flawed in ways that go beyond that utterly fallacious and misleading hypothetical. It’s flawed because nobody is crazy enough to consistently apply it to pregnant women.
while most don’t agree with pregnant people smoking or drinking while pregnant, it is still completely within their rights to do so. not to mention that addiction is a serious issue that is difficult to overcome, even while pregnant, and oftentimes doctors will recommend that a pregnant person should not quit smoking cold turkey because the withdrawal could harm the fetus more than smoking would.
7. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it requires you to support abortion at every stage of development.
I do, and unlike this article claims, many pro-choicers do as well. less than 1.2% of abortions happen at 21+ weeks gestation. abortions past that stage happen because of fetal abnormalities or the health of the pregnant person - elective abortions simply don’t happen this far into a pregnancy.
9. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it necessarily justifies things like public masturbation.
I….just….what? this is the biggest false equivalence I’ve ever seen.
10. Finally, the bodily autonomy argument is flawed because our bodies are not autonomous.
comparing having responsibilities in our lives to having the right to govern what happens directly to our bodies is ridiculous. while as people we have responsibilities to uphold and are restricted in that regard, what happens to our own bodies is absolutely under our own control.
it’s pretty clear that the (presumably cis) man that wrote this steaming pile of crap has no idea what bodily autonomy actually is or how it works. this does nothing for the pro-life movement except rehash their trite, outdated arguments into something they think they can use as a “GOTCHA!!” against pro-choicers.
The Amazing Connections Between the Inca and Egyptian Cultures
"The ancient Egyptians (in Africa) and the ancient pre-Incas/Incas (in South America) evolved on opposite sides of the globe and were never in contact.
Yet, both cultures mysteriously possessed the same strikingly identical body of ancient art, architecture, symbolism, mythology and religion.
The Victorian era scholars, faced with this enigma, concluded that both cultures must have been children of the same Golden Age parent civilization, “Atlantis.”
Today, Egyptian/Inca parallels are not only being ignored by American and Western scholars, they’re being suppressed.
Many baffling and unsolved similarities link the ancient Egyptians and the ancient pre-Incas/Incas ― even though both cultures evolved on opposite sides of the planet, separated by oceans” Read More
Self sucking, self fucking, and amusing commentary? Yes please!
Wow! Fucking wow. Bravo.
I’m pretty sure Colton Haynes and Tyler Hoechlin never made anybody suck their dicks like that :)
this is actually how abortion works. stay informed.
this is so wild
As a trans woman, I can’t:
- Be femme (because I’m “over-performing” my gender, to quote Julie Bindel, and reinforcing the patriarchy besides by relying on harmful stereotypes of womanhood)
- Be butch or even not femme (because therapists wouldn’t even listen to me if my gender expression wasn’t Princess Peach [you ever think of that as an explanation, Julie Bindel?])
- Be assertive (because I’m “exercising my male privilege” and “innate masculinity” [because saying women can’t be confident is good feminism])
- Be passive (again, reinforcing the patriarchy)
- Be straight (because I’m “actually a deranged gay man desperate to fit into the patriarchy”)
- Be gay (because I’m “actually a deranged straight man desperate to get my dick into lesbian-only spaces”)
- Have sexual reassignment surgery (because it’s “unnecessary genital mutilation” according to people for whom it is completely unnecessary and “won’t make [me] a woman any more than shoving a vacuum down one’s pants makes them a man” [how right you are, BEING A WOMAN MAKES ME A WOMAN])
- Not have sexual reassignment surgery (because I’d be faking it if I wanted to keep my penis and having a penis makes me a horrifying nuclear reactor of masculine rape energy that will trigger everyone around me even if I wear two layers of tights over underwear and under pants and never remove any of them)
- Ever use a bathroom ever, you disgusting deviant, just your existence is harassment
- Get any support from the Salvation Army, who would literally just let me die on their steps
- Automatically assume that someone who identifies as feminist or even queer is a friend to me
- Ever know with certainty that I wasn’t fired or just didn’t get a job at all because someone along the line realized I’m trans
- Travel without being detained for years because my passport says M and I’m F
- Date anyone without being afraid that telling them will repulse them to the point of murdering me and then literally submitting to a jury of their peers that my being transgender was so horrifying that it drove them temporarily insane
But, you know, being called ‘cis’ on the Internet sounds rough too.