I mean, it seems pretty obvious when you put it like that, right?
But how many families, when an introvert sibling or child makes an effort to socialize, snarkily say, “So, you’ve decided to join us”?
Or when someone does something they’ve had trouble doing, say, “Why can’t you do that all the time?” (Happened to me, too often.)
Or any sentence containing the word “finally”.
If someone makes a step, a small step, in a direction you want to encourage, encourage it. Don’t complain about how it’s not enough. Don’t bring up previous stuff. Encourage it.
Because I swear to fucking god there is nothing more soul-killing, more motivation-crushing, than struggling to succeed and finding out that success and failure are both punished.
I think it’s deeply, deeply sad when I watch a video on YouTube and a woman says, “I’m having a no makeup day/it’s important to have no makeup days/I didn’t feel like doing anything today…. So I just put concealer under my eyes and on my zits and evened my complexion and did my brows and a little bit of mascara”.
Like their idea of not wearing makeup is… wearing makeup. It’s disturbing. I wish these women weren’t taught that the “default” of womanhood is still covering your imperfections
or maybe… they just enjoy wearing makeup? they feel better with it on? why do we assume women who enjoy wearing makeup or prefer to always have some on “hate themselves” or “don’t value” themselves. let women wear makeup who want to and let women who don’t want to have a bare face in peace. jesus fucking christ.
without fail – WITHOUT FUCKING FAIL – whenever theres a post like this, theres people like you in the comments, and i have to say, im fucking sick of it. i dont know if it stems from some sort of defensive instinct, some feeling of being attacked because you wear makeup and this post criticizes (an aspect of) makeup, but either way, you show up in the comments like reading comprehension lacking little roaches.
this post DOES NOT SAY women who like makeup should feel guilty.
it DOES NOT SAY every woman who wears makeup hates themself.
IT SAYS THAT WEARING MAKEUP – SOMETHING THAT TAKES UP MONEY, TIME AND EFFORT – SHOULD NOT BE THE NORM FOR WOMEN, TO THE DEGREE THAT ‘NO MAKEUP’ IS DEFINED AS CONCEALER, BROWS, MASCARA AND BB CREAM
THERE ARE WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE SCARED TO BE SEEN WITHOUT MAKEUP BY THEIR PARTNERS, WHO SLEEP WITH MAKEUP ON BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID THEIR SIGNIFCANT OTHER WILL NOT FIND THEM BEAUTIFUL WITHOUT MAKEUP
YOU CANNOT TELL ME THESE WOMEN ‘ENJOY MAKEUP’ IN THE WAY SOMEONE WOULD ENJOY KNITTING, THERE ARE MANY LAYERS TO THIS, AND SOCIETAL PRESSURE, REWARD AND EXPECTATIONS *ARE* RELEVANT. YOU CANNOT SAY OTHERWISE WITHOUT LYING TO YOURSELF.
Going without makeup shouldn’t be brave, it shouldn’t be an emotional challenge. But it is for a lot of people.
I have seen girls doing no makeup challenges who fucking… Got upset and cried. Just having their bare, natural faces without products on it has become so expected of them that is induces distress and anxiety to be without it. They feel judged.
That’s fucked up.
Makeup as an item, as a thing… It is nether good, nor bad, it is just a tool. But a culture of makeup is manipulative and warping the way a lot of women view themselves and how they view other women.
That is not empowerment, it’s not “choice feminism”… It’s a culture designed to exploit women emotionally and financially until they feel socially inept when not wearing makeup.
So proud of my mother for doing her own research after I sent her that meme. A sign she hung in her car window.
Stay woke
Is this true?
Not only is it true, it gets worse. The Susan G Komen For The Cure Foundation has actually successfully sued “competing” charities, because (paraphrasing) their “message or branding was infringing.”
You read that correctly: they took money that people had donated to cure cancer, and hired attorneys with it, to sue ANOTHER group of people trying to find a cure for cancer, who, in turn, had to us their donated money to hire their own legal counsel to defend themselves.
Yeah signal boost because not enough people know about this and seriously FUCK SUSAN G. KOMEN THEY ARE THE ACTUAL WORST
It’s that time of year again, please remember Komen is the actual worst
Komen For The Cure is pretty much awful.
My mother died in 1996 from breast cancer. Most cancer charities are scams, in that people throw fancy parties and get rich off them and very little money goes into research or support for patients. Here are some vetted cancer charities that get good scores on Charity Navigator and pay medical expenses or fund research:
I think God is one and the same and follow good doctrines of both
I’m atheist
I’m Jewish
And it’s often more subtle
Like a salesperson handing you two products and pressuring you to buy one of them, making you forget that
You don’t have to buy anything if you don’t want to
You can leave the store and buy something elsewhere
And sometimes it can be as important as
“Are you gay or are you straight?”
I’m gay
I’m straight
I’m both? So Bi?
I like no one, I’m ace.
I’m anything else, really, this is a spectrum and I define my own orientation.
So remember- If someone if pressuring you to pick between two choices, they’re probably trying to manipulate you by making you forget you also have another three options.
I think seeing people in their 20´s and 30´s as “old” is pretty unhealthy tbh.
This post was hijacked but my point remains, you don’t turn old the instant you stop being a teenager. Let people enjoy being young adults, stop making teenagers anxious that their life ends the minute they hit twenty, or adults feel like they can’t have fun anymore.
Heres the thing you gotta understand about statistics.
“Increases your chances by 80%” does not mean “there is now an 80% chance”.
If your chances were previously 10%, your chances are now 18%, not 90%.
if your chances were roughly 1%, they’re now just slightly less than 2%.
thats how that works.
Wow I don’t understand math at all
‘if you have a baby after 35, the chance of deformities goes up by 100%’ is a line I hear alot.
It goes up from .5% to 1%
To simplify: It’s the percent amount of the current factor.
In the starting example: 10% is the factor. 80% of 10 is 8, and then add together (increase by that): 10 + 8 = 18. Thus an 80% increase of 10% is 18%.
Similarly: 1% is the factor, it’s really the same as 10, just the decimal stepped over (10.0%, 1.00% // I know that isn’t really how numbers work, I’m just doing this for the visual). And thus, 80% of 1% then adding it on would be basically 1.8%
And finally, .5%. 100% of .5 is just that, ‘point 5′, or a half a percent. Two halves make a whole, and thus a single percent or ‘1%’.
Pretty easy to be honest… Though, it’s easy to get caught up in the statement and forget that, sometimes even when you know better.
Practical, every day use of maths: Not being dooped by dipshit marketing teams
“R*tarded” is not used as medical terminology specifically because the word has become a slur.
Nobody in the field, except for very old people (people who’ve been working in the field since the 1970′s/80′s and have yet to update their terminology) uses it anymore.
So don’t give me that “it’s a medical term” bullshit. It’s a slur and you’re using it as a way to ostracize and other dd/id individuals.
And this is why we used to make cars out of STEEL instead of FIBERGLASS! Sure, fiberglass is a lot lighter in weight and hence a hell of a lot better for gas mileage. But you hit anything at more than 20 mph and the entire body explodes off the fucking thing, and now you’re spending more to repair the car than it’s worth because you need a entire front end, read end, or side panel. They can’t just take the damaged section off, beat it out with a hammer, sand it, and repaint it.
Everything is made with the idea of it being easier to replace than to maintain, aka planned obsolescence. Thanks, capitalism
You guys are obscenely, dangerously wrong.
It’s not planned obsolescence, it’s physics.
Modern cars crumple to absorb and distribute the forces of impact in an accident in an effort to protect the occupants. When cars didn’t have those crumple zones, the occupants, being the soft, squishy things they were, took those forces and were mangled or killed in horrible ways. Also, those older cars took hidden damage that often went unnoticed and made them very dangerous to drive. IT’s really easy to hide a twisted frame when all you need to do to make the car look okay is a bit of sanding and paint.
I recently watched a TV show where a small sedan was run over by the trailer of an eighteen-wheeler. Run. Over. They had to unwrap the crumpled ball of a car from the undercarriage of that trailer. Guess what? The driver suffered only minor injuries because the car collapsed in exactly the way it was designed to so that she, in the very strong frame surrounding the passenger compartment, was protected.
And no, don’t thank capitalism for these modern cars. Thank Ralph Nader and countless other safety activists who worked tirelessly to make car manufacturers accountable for the safety of the people who drove their cars.
I’m an estimator for a major insurance company which means I spend all day, every day, around wrecked cars. I’ve been to the NHTSA, I’ve attended a crash test. I have actually seen and put hands on both the vehicles in the .gif above. The idea that old cars are somehow built better or are “tanks” or whatever is not only wrong, it’s dangerous. New cars are built to “crunch” so you don’t have to.
This is the 59 Bel Aire post crash – notice that the area where the driver sits is significantly compromised. The person driving this car would have died in this 35mph crash.
This is the Malibu – crunched? Yes! But the area where the driver sits is not crushed.
I have seen modern cars keep people alive in horrifying accidents. Cars are objectively better and safer in every single way than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. Period.
Also modern passenger cars are definitely not made of fiberglass. What even?
ifesbob 