recentpopularlog in

twitterthread

« earlier   
Tressie McMillan Cottom on Twitter: "I’m watching Booksmart because Roxane recommended. I’m fifteen minutes in and if these girls don’t discover social reproduction By the end to resolve this narrative tension I’m going to be disappointed" / Twitt
I’m watching Booksmart because Roxane recommended. I’m fifteen minutes in and if these girls don’t discover social reproduction By the end to resolve this narrative tension I’m going to be disappointed

The slackers all got into good colleges because they are white and middle class and from same school as you, Molly.

See, it never mattered what you did in high school, Molly. You were all going to go to college. So you don’t have to wild out because there’s no conflict, Molly. None of your choices mattered.
twitterthread  film  by:tressiemcmillancottom  film:booksmart  highered 
2 days ago by dirtystylus
Gabrielle Blair on Twitter: "When I hear men worshipping guns and talking about how there’s nothing that will stop them from defending their family, my mind goes to Naaman in the Bible. Do you remember Naaman? He was a great military leader, and he also
When I hear men worshipping guns and talking about how there’s nothing that will stop them from defending their family, my mind goes to Naaman in the Bible. Do you remember Naaman? He was a great military leader, and he also had leprosy.
The prophet told him to bathe in the Jordan River 7 times to be cured. He refused. In fact he was pissed off the cure was so simple. So his servants said: If he’d asked you to do some great thing, you would have done it, but you’re not willing to go bathe in the water?
That’s like men bragging about how they’re ready and willing to protect their family. They're picturing doing *some great thing*, but protecting your family is almost always much more mundane.

A few conversations with God to illustrate:
Conversation #1:

Man: Hey God, I just want you to know I am committed to protecting my family at all costs.

God: Gosh, that’s great to hear.

One of the main things I need you to do to protect your family is laundry. Tons of laundry. You know kids...
— they’re so susceptible to infections and viruses. Pinworms, athlete’s foot, lice, strep throat, colds and flues. Pneumonia and diarrhea are *serious killers* of children under five. The list is endless. So you’re going to need to do laundry pretty much daily.
Launder their socks & underwear, their sheets. Put their sneakers through the wash. I can’t emphasize this enough: protecting your family involves a lot of laundry.

Man: Oh. Um.

I was thinking more along the lines of a masked intruder with a gun at 2 AM raping my family.
God: First of all, stop fantasizing about your family being raped.

Second, do you know the stats on break-ins? The vast majority happen when no one is home, and only a small percentage are armed. Home alarms and dogs reduce the risk even more.
Even if you do end up being the rare house with an armed-break-in-while-home, you want to shoot someone for over your TV? Isn't that a ridiculous overreaction?

You’re not in the mob. I assure you there’s a slim-to-none chance you’ll need to defend your family at gun point.
If you really want to protect your family, laundry is where I need you to focus.

Man: But. But.

I bought all these guns. And ammunition. And I’m telling you, if anyone threatens my family, I’ll be ready.
God: Is there anything you’re willing to do to protect your family that’s not the plot of an action/thriller?

Man:

God:

Man:

God: Sigh.

10/
Conversation #2:

God: I’d like you to protect your family.

Man: You bet. I’m ready. If anyone touches my kids, they are dead meat.

God. Okay. Well, to protect your family, the thing I need you to do is teach thorough hand-washing.

11/
Basically, you’ll need to carefully wash your kids’ hands several times a day until they’re old enough to do it themselves. At that point you’ll need to supervise the hand-washing for several years until you know they’ve mastered it.

12/
And from then on, you just need to spend another ten years asking them to wash their hands multiple times a day — before school, after school, before meals, after potty breaks, etc.. Cool?

Man: Well. Um.

Is there an assignment that’s more related to guns?

13/
God: Nope. The main thing is hand-washing.

Having guns in the house actually puts your kids in harm’s way. Surely, as a protective parent, you’ve read about the dangers of keeping and storing guns at home?

Man:

14/
God: Let me guess. If I need someone to dig a hole on an asteroid, plant a bomb in the hole to blow up the asteroid, in order to save the Earth, you’ll be first in line.

Man: HECK YES

God:

Man:

God: Helpful.

15/
Conversation #3:

Man: I’m ready to defend my family!! My guns and ammunition are stocked.

God: So glad to hear you’re ready to defend your family. Here’s the key thing I need you to do: Never drink alcohol again.

Man: Wait. What?

16/
God: Well I’m sure you know motor vehicle accidents and gun accidents are top killers of children. And mixing alcohol with driving or guns makes them far riskier. If you’ve been drinking, there’s a higher likelihood you’ll drive drunk, lose your temper and hurt the kids...

17/
... or just be irresponsible with your gun. So if you want to protect your family, I would recommend giving up alcohol as a good way to start.

Man:

God:

Man: Can’t I just shoot some bad guys?

God: So then, NOT actually interested in protecting your family.

18/
Conversation #4:

God: Are you ready and willing to protect your family?

Man: YES. Come at me. My house is fully armed and I keep a handgun under the passenger seat. I am READY.

God: Oh. Well. The thing I need you to do is feed your kids plenty of healthy food.

19/
Do the grocery shopping. Plans the meals. Stock the fridge. Cook dinner. And of course, do the dishes and keep the kitchen clean because you don’t want harmful bacteria taking over.

20/
Man: But. I mean. I don’t even know how to cook.

God: How did you learn about your weapons?

Man: Youtube.

God: Are there cooking videos on Youtube?

Man:

[End of conversations]

21/
I'm often told that men have instincts to protect their family and how Protector is their natural role.

I think the case can be more easily made that men have zero natural instincts to protect their family.

22/

22

635

7.6K


If such an instinct had evolved, why wouldn't men check back with any woman they’d had sex with, to see if they'd caused a pregnancy?

How can we say men have an instinct to protect their family when there are children the world over with fathers who have no idea they exist?

23/
It’s much easier to argue that mothers have a strong instinct to protect their families. Mothers still do the bulk (by far the bulk) of the parenting. Which means mothers do the real things that actually protect their kids every day all day long.

24/
Men demanding guns for their role as protector-of-the-family are full of it. They are only willing to protect in make-believe instances that are never likely to happen. When asked to *actually* protect their family, by doing something like laundry, they can’t be bothered.

25/25

384

1.5K

12.4K
guns  religion  toxicmasculinity  genderroles  twitterthread  by:gabrielleblair 
7 days ago by dirtystylus
Courtney Jane Walker on Twitter: "@VMIpod @Duanaelise @jennyowenyoungs I could actually do a full twenty minutes on the arc of the Veronica/Logan romance and how the reboot was a savvy exploration and subversion of “bad boy” teen romance tropes." / Tw
I could actually do a full twenty minutes on the arc of the Veronica/Logan romance and how the reboot was a savvy exploration and subversion of “bad boy” teen romance tropes.

VMIPod: yes! He had really worked on himself and she…hadn’t? HZ

Yes! There was that part of her that wanted him to be jealous and angry because she 1) thinks it’s hot and 2) can’t stand being disappointed by people, so better to expect the worst.
twitterthread  tv  tv:veronicamars 
8 days ago by dirtystylus
Grant Macaskill on Twitter: "I’ve been thinking a little about this recently. Christians often say “The Bible teaches ...” or “Scripture teaches...” but this is not an idiom that is used in the Bible itself, when authors or characters refer back
I’ve been thinking a little about this recently. Christians often say “The Bible teaches ...” or “Scripture teaches...” but this is not an idiom that is used in the Bible itself, when authors or characters refer back to prior Scriptures.

We encounter expressions like “It is written” (gegraptai), or “As *insert author* says” but these are formulae that introduce quotations. In rabbinic texts, they often introduce texts that appear to support different viewpoints and set up or develop interpretative debates.

I wonder if the “Bible teaches” idiom dangerously truncates the modality with which biblical authority or normativity operates to the concept of the moral handbook (also a popular image in some traditions: the “handbook for life.”

The problem with this is that it does not accommodate the material form of Scripture and how this determines its role within Christian thought and practice. Handbooks give instructions and little else. But the Bible contains only a little material that can be labelled instruction

Torah, certainly, is essentially “instruction,” but the word Torah is not identical in scope to Bible or Scripture.

Mostly, the Bible contains things that are generally not found in handbooks (such as the one I have for recording software). Handbooks generally don’t guide us using a mixture of story, poetry, proverb and philosophy.

The classic image of the canon in Christian tradition is that of the library. The one who lives in this library is moulded and shaped by it, and morally different as a result, but only part of that reflects direct instruction of the command sort.

A number of writers (notably Stanley Hauerwas) have picked up on the problem of giving a dominant role to the notion of command-obedience in our accounts of Christian doctrine and ethics. My point here is that it is an approach that neglects the material form of Scripture.

Interestingly, we don’t see it in Jewish interpretation (e.g., in the Gemara), which acknowledges the diversity of voices and genres and more obviously “lives in the library”.
I can’t help but feel that it this kind of simplification of the notion of biblical authority (a particularly modern problem) is dangerous, particularly when we try to advocate moral positions as “biblical” and alternatives as “unbiblical”.

Up to a point, we recognise the issue. Few people will quote Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) 1:2 and say that the bible clearly teaches that life in meaningless. At that point, we invoke context and genre because it suits us to do so.

But we need to be intentional about recognising the complex character of Scripture when it DOESN’T suit our (possibly) simplistic opinions.
twitterthread  by:grantmacaskill  via:wildagafney  theology  bible  scripture 
17 days ago by dirtystylus
Rachel Fields on Twitter: "What near-perfect movies are corrupted by a single scene that is terrible or makes no sense? I submit: Cady falling into a trash can in Mean Girls, which is wildly tonally inconsistent and almost seems to exist outside the narra
What near-perfect movies are corrupted by a single scene that is terrible or makes no sense? I submit: Cady falling into a trash can in Mean Girls, which is wildly tonally inconsistent and almost seems to exist outside the narrative of the movie.
twitterthread  film  list 
19 days ago by dirtystylus
Zito on Twitter: "Man, if you're going to mention the rape case, don't just sprinkle it in there out of obligation. Using jargon like "complicated" is an easy way to glide past it. You can just write why someone who was so heroic to millions of people als
Man, if you're going to mention the rape case, don't just sprinkle it in there out of obligation. Using jargon like "complicated" is an easy way to glide past it. You can just write why someone who was so heroic to millions of people also represented rape culture at its fullest.
It's not that hard to see that your heroes can be seen in a different light by others, especially when they did do terrible things. And the fact that you wouldn't have to say "now's not the time" if the time to talk about it ever actually existed.
So many people, including the media, helped him rehabilitate after the case without ever reckoning with what he did. Because great athletes are heroes and we need them to be flattened as good. The entire "Black Mamba" idea was transforming that case into a positive.
What happened was what always happens, a powerful man was accused and people shamed the accuser and then went past the issue as quickly as possible. It's not unfair that some are still bitter about that and what it says about our world and how we value women.
Every great thing Kobe did afterwards, his support for women's sports, his love for his children and the youth, his new adventure into other ventures, was wonderful. But it's not up to fans to grant him a redemption for that rape case. Redemption starts at the people you hurt.
If he's never forgiven for that, then that's just it. That's the problem with hurting someone, you can't go and erase it and the power to fix it is not in your hands. But being mad at him not being forgiven for it, is being mad that the victim won't let you be comfortable.
It's not an impossible thing to reckon with, nor does it have to take away from grief and how important he was to so many people. But you can't use "flawed" as an escape. That's too cowardly.
sexualassault  law  kobebryant  twitterthread  via:soniagupta 
24 days ago by dirtystylus

Copy this bookmark:





to read