An aesthetic that first appears to be pure and basic Heterosexuals Are At It Again, but becomes increasingly uncomfortable until you finally understand:
these babygrows (onesies) with parental professions on eBay.
An entrepreneurial sort, eBay user “justtheshirt” realized that for some people, the perfect gift for, say, the baby of a beekeeper is a onesie saying “Daddy’s Little Beekeeper.” In fact, the more obscure the profession, the more excited the customer will feel about the representation! So they took a list of All the Professions, and generated a listing for each one. If someone buys a onesie, they can stamp it with whatever the listing said – and make a rather enormous profit, on a £3 onesie, having made exactly one design and used one script. Genius!
The issue is, they didn’t curate the list. Not a single human appears to have overseen this process. So they have inadvertently created some uncomfortably themed babywear, like “Daddy’s Little Maid,” “Daddy’s Little Nightwalker,” and “Daddy’s Little Courtesan.”
The database also contained a massive proportion of obscure Medieval English professions, like “fulker” and “meader” and “whipcord maker.” (The auto-generated listing enthuses something like, “the perfect gift for a whipcord maker – or just for someone who wishes they were one!”)
There are onesies for babies whose daddies are herbalists, muleteers and sacristans.
I have come full circle in my feelings about this and now I am all in favor of dressing babies in these, as long as the profession is incredibly obscure, and the daddy in question refuses to explain anything.
tilthat posted this misinformation before so I’m just gonna repost what I wrote back then:
I think with such a statement it’s very important to talk about what the study actually researched – because I’ve read the study and I don’t think it can be broken down to “women see non-sexist men as sexist”. That framing will lead to major misunderstandings.
Specifically the study talks about benevolent sexism (BS) which is things like “being chivalrous” and thinking that women need special protection, and hostile sexism (HS) which is what most people would see as “real sexism”, you know, just blatantly mistreating women because of their gender.
The study puts it like this:
“Unlike hostile sexism, benevolent sexism is often not seen as problematic due to its subjectively positive content. Putting women on a pedestal may be deemed “nice,” “romantic,” or even “respectful” to women. However, HS and BS are complementary in maintaining gender inequality: while BS serves as a “reward” for women who embrace traditional gender roles, HS serves as a “punishment” for women who threaten the status quo.”
Women in our society are likely to be confronted with both types of sexism, but most people don’t understand the correlation. One result of that is the following:
“The misconception of BS in men may also suggest why it is difficult for some women to leave abusive relationships. On the surface, ambivalent sexist abusers may seem like doting boyfriends or husbands when they place their partners on a pedestal during the “honeymoon” phase (Cycle of Violence; Walker, 1979); however, they may also lash out violently when their partners fail to conform to their unrealistic standards. Thus, women may think that their partners could change and remain in abusive relationships, without recognizing that the male abuser’s positive treatment during the “honeymoon phase” goes hand-in-hand with his abusive behaviour whenever his partner deviates from cultural ideals of femininity.”
Women are conditioned to expect BS as a form of showing them respect, but it is quite the opposite. So when a man who isn’t a sexist understands the correlation between BS and HS and decides to do neither, women will see him as less respecting. That is what the study talks about, not “women see nice men as misogynists”.
Conclusion: Patriarchal society trains women to expect and accept sexism and that makes it harder for men to break out of sexist conventions. And that is exactly why we need feminism and feminist education.
this map is fascinating for a variety of reasons but the particular part of it that made me fall down a wikihole was the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture, which I was not familiar with. they seem pretty cool for a variety of reasons but what caught my eye is that they’d build a city, literally the largest city in the world they would build, and then they’d live there for about sixty years, and then they’d burn the fucker down. Why? Nobody knows. They’d move somewhere else and do the whole thing over, and then maybe move back and rebuild the first city identically on the same foundations. In one place they did that thirteen times.
this is some SCP type shit. what was chasing them. what happened in these cities that they needed burning down over and over
…what
right????? also i forgot my favorite part: we can’t get buildings to burn down this way. we’ve tried, nobody has actually managed to set a fire that leaves the same kind of rubble. it is not…traditional…fire
i’m reading a reddit thread about embarrassing/cringey things people did in their first relationships and have been losing my shit at this response for the past five minutes
“all star” by smash mouth, but only using the sounds and beats on my synth (and also anthony “ten second songs” vincent on some other instruments) these titles are getting too long
callanswall 