♥ 383682 — 10 hours ago on 17 Apr 2014 — via asian (source)

mydisneystories:

tell me boy meets world wasn’t brilliant

tell me

♥ 314130 — 10 hours ago on 17 Apr 2014 — via mydisneystories (source)
numbkid:

"Why do we just accept things? "comfort!!!"

numbkid:

"Why do we just accept things? "comfort!!!"

♥ 7671 — 11 hours ago on 17 Apr 2014 — via numbkid
Anonymous inquired:

I'm a bit ignorant since I couldn't stand Duggars' preaches about God and their tendency to breed, but ah, can you list some of what the parents had done harm to their children? I hope this is okay to ask, not trying to fuel a fire, or anything.

I get you. There are just too many things. I’m not trying to be an asshole here and I know you’re not either, but this one really could be answered more thoroughly through a Google search, and listing each harmful behavior of the Duggars just isn’t what I want to spend this blog’s time on. Hope you understand. But here’s a general statement about it:

Most people who defend the Duggars (which I know you’re not doing) say, “They take care of their kids’ survival needs, good enough.” That’s not good enough. It takes more than sustaining a human’s life to be a good, non-abusive, non-toxic parent. Making your older children do most of the parenting tasks towards the younger children, when you have the ability to do it yourself, is wrong. Brainwashing them to believe things that will make them feel bad about themselves, along with things that’ll put other people in danger, is a form of emotional abuse, which they’ve been doing to these children since birth (this is a general summary of numerous actions and “beliefs” over time, and it’s similar to how the adults in the Westboro Baptist Church treat/teach their children, maybe less obviously to the average onlooker because they don’t mask it as “hate”). Not allowing ANY privacy to your teens and adult children, treating them like they’re kindergarteners, is abusive and creepy. It’s arguably objectifying, and definitely forces them into a weird submissive role. 

I don’t mind the questions, but this is really all I have to say about the Duggars.

♥ 1 — 11 hours ago on 17 Apr 2014
Anonymous inquired:

What do you think about the Duggars. From 19 kids and counting?

So awful I could write a dissertation. I wouldn’t even know where to begin in answering this message. Such a highly problematic family, have a dangerous cult dynamic amongst themselves, parents who force their older kids to take care of the rest of their offspring, parents who brainwash them and practice other acts of emotional abuse (and perhaps physical behind the scenes? But we don’t know for sure). My biggest problems with them are in the way they treat their family, and actually not in the fact that they are unethically reproducing too many times. But of course that bothers me too.

Those kids are living in an extremely toxic environment, and if they make it out, they’re going to need therapy for life. The kids aren’t at fault, and I wish the best for them. I especially hope they’ll end up nothing like their parents, but most of them probably will to some degree. 

♥ 2 — 12 hours ago on 17 Apr 2014
fallow-ground:

I just posted a link to an article that lambastes this absolutely disgusting reformation of Maslow far better than I ever could, but the image is too profound not to share on its own. 
For those unfamiliar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the short story is that this is a model that describes the most basic needs that all healthy humans have and the relative priority of those needs in more or less evolutionary order. According to this model, a human must fulfill the needs on the lower levels of the pyramid in order to develop to the point to where the needs above become relevant, and progression up the pyramid signifies gradual evolution towards being “fully actualized” (i.e. completely fulfilled) as a human being. 
Simplified: this is supposed to be a way of summarizing the basic psychological needs of human beings as a species, and the higher up the pyramid you are, the more complete you are as a human being. 
So, think about that revised model in this context. Instead of simply suggesting that humans must achieve some level of satisfaction with themselves and their lives as a total package (i.e. the summary of physical well being and safety, social satisfaction and self-respect, and being more or less in control of your own fate) the way the old model did; now the model specifically dictates what kind of self-actualization is necessary in order to be whole as a human: namely, the hunt for, acquisition and retention of, a mate; and participation in the propagation of the species. 
Simplified: If you do not have these drives (“needs”) then you are lesser-evolved than your breeding counterparts and therefore a stunted representative of the human species. 
That’s right, in one fell swoop these a-holes have formally classified the non-breeding instinct as being subhuman.
To which I offer the following thoughtful response:


I wouldn’t say either side is more “evolved” than the other. 
But to say that we’re the less evolved version? When the others contribute to a quicker extinction of our species by continuing to reproduce without considering the consequences? Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense.

fallow-ground:

I just posted a link to an article that lambastes this absolutely disgusting reformation of Maslow far better than I ever could, but the image is too profound not to share on its own. 

For those unfamiliar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the short story is that this is a model that describes the most basic needs that all healthy humans have and the relative priority of those needs in more or less evolutionary order. According to this model, a human must fulfill the needs on the lower levels of the pyramid in order to develop to the point to where the needs above become relevant, and progression up the pyramid signifies gradual evolution towards being “fully actualized” (i.e. completely fulfilled) as a human being. 

Simplified: this is supposed to be a way of summarizing the basic psychological needs of human beings as a species, and the higher up the pyramid you are, the more complete you are as a human being.

So, think about that revised model in this context. Instead of simply suggesting that humans must achieve some level of satisfaction with themselves and their lives as a total package (i.e. the summary of physical well being and safety, social satisfaction and self-respect, and being more or less in control of your own fate) the way the old model did; now the model specifically dictates what kind of self-actualization is necessary in order to be whole as a human: namely, the hunt for, acquisition and retention of, a mate; and participation in the propagation of the species.

Simplified: If you do not have these drives (“needs”) then you are lesser-evolved than your breeding counterparts and therefore a stunted representative of the human species.

That’s right, in one fell swoop these a-holes have formally classified the non-breeding instinct as being subhuman.

To which I offer the following thoughtful response:

I wouldn’t say either side is more “evolved” than the other. 

But to say that we’re the less evolved version? When the others contribute to a quicker extinction of our species by continuing to reproduce without considering the consequences? Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense.

♥ 31 — 18 hours ago on 16 Apr 2014 — via fallow-ground

There's a Sir David Attenborough quote I thought you would really appreciate: "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we controlled the population to allow survival of the environment."

pitbullgirl65:

beingchildfree:

Thank you for sharing!

The phrasing of his statement is a bit problematic, which could lead to a lot of misunderstandings. The words “controlled the population” could imply laws and interference on peoples’ bodily autonomy, which is unethical. But I agree with the sentiments:

  • It is natural for environments to change over time and circumstance, but our environments are rapidly deteriorating at a dangerous pace because of OUR actions. 
  • The environment needs our help. But we should be devoting just as much of our time, if not more, to proper sex education and contraceptive and abortion access for everyone. This in turn will decrease the global birth rate, and do wonders for the environment’s survival.

1.I can’t remember where I read it, but if women are empowered economically, and have access to safe reproductive services, their reproduction rates fall.

2. Another elephant: The United States consumes and produces the majority of the worlds resources and garbage.


Next time you hear about a woman in India who has 7 children, remember that she’d have to have more than 10 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child!
Source:

Everything about this extra info is perfect. The birth rates definitely fall when women* are educated and given access to resources. 

The fact that plenty of women* in the United States and throughout the world don’t have this is an incredible consequence of sexism.

♥ 13 — 22 hours ago on 16 Apr 2014 — via pitbullgirl65 (source)

There's a Sir David Attenborough quote I thought you would really appreciate: "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we controlled the population to allow survival of the environment."

Thank you for sharing!

The phrasing of his statement is a bit problematic, which could lead to a lot of misunderstandings. The words “controlled the population” could imply laws and interference on peoples’ bodily autonomy, which is unethical. But I agree with the sentiments:

  • It is natural for environments to change over time and circumstance, but our environments are rapidly deteriorating at a dangerous pace because of OUR actions. 
  • The environment needs our help. But we should be devoting just as much of our time, if not more, to proper sex education and contraceptive and abortion access for everyone. This in turn will decrease the global birth rate, and do wonders for the environment’s survival.
♥ 13 — 1 day ago on 15 Apr 2014
feminerdism inquired:

Recently a friend told me she disagrees that we have an over-population problem. She cited examples in Europe and Japan where they are experiencing the negative effects of having a large aging population with a smaller working-age generation because of negative population growth. Thoughts? I told her that there has to be an adjustment period if we're going to slow down the population explosion.

This is a common fallacy about overpopulation - that it’s not a global problem and crisis because of certain places that are lacking in population. While certain places ARE lacking in necessary numbers, this problem could be solved through immigration, and numbers have already started growing again in these countries due to immigration. There is no arguing that there are too many people on this planet, and that it’s damaging species and the environment. What we have trouble with is distribution.

And anyone who thinks it would be environmentally okay to reproduce in the United States because of “less populations in other parts of the world” is an extremely privileged and selfish person who doesn’t care or understand how bringing a child into an already overpopulated area harms the poor and suffering who are currently alive in that area.

♥ 8 — 1 day ago on 15 Apr 2014
Anonymous inquired:

Today my mother discovered an article about rising infertility rates in the local paper. Part of it compared being infertile and wanting a child to cancer. My mother has cancer and will not survive it. To see her get upset over this moronic comparison makes me furious. Why do people think this is equivalent? This stupid child-centric society makes me sick. Fucking equating a selfish act to an uncontrollable sickness which ruins lives.

I am also offended by the comparison. While being infertile when you really want to reproduce can feel like a hardship and immensely painful, it is not a debilitating condition that interferes with someone’s ability to live their lives fully. The feelings one might have from this are valid and need to be worked through, but these people can still go on to be parents, just not through reproduction (with the exception of people who are discriminated against in the adoption process). 

I’m very sorry to hear about your mother, and I hope you two are able to fully enjoy the time you have left together. My thoughts go out to you both.

♥ 12 — 2 days ago on 14 Apr 2014