oh this comic shows up in a really cool anthology i bought a few years back (and was just rereading in fact) called No Straight Lines. it covers the last 40 years of LGBT comics and the various phases, influences and unsung heroes of the zine scene and more. (such as a chapter that focuses heavily on what art and stories resulted from the AIDS crisis, the clash of the gay sexual revolution and the rise of homosexual monogamy, and more.) highly recommended if you’re interested in LGBT history and comics!
Hey I know this artist! Her and her son are going through a really tough time right now and could really use your support!
You can find her Etsy here (she makes custom pottery/figurines)
Good for this person. This is exactly what you do. Screw the job.
I had a job that made me work an all nighter, 30 hours straight, over Thanksgiving. I resigned that Monday and it was one of the most satisfying decisions I’ve ever made.
Please pay attention to all the manipulation tactics this boss uses, because they’re pulling out every trick in the book.
“I’m not your boss, I’m your friend”
“Other people will be hurt by this and it’s your fault and I’m going to tell them all that”
Mocking language
Jobs are important too
“Be a team player”
“We’re your family too”
Talking as if this is a thing you must do
“We all make sacrifices”
Undermining your authority
“You caused all of this, really”
Accusing you of being “unprofessional”
“Look at the money you cost us”
“Just laugh it off and come back to work”
This is like a 101 course in how employers use guilt trips to coerce you into putting up with their bullshit. This is precisely why you should never trust those employers who insist that they’re “like a family.” They are not. It’s just a ruse so that your boss can neg you into putting your job ahead of your actual life.
“autism isn’t flapping hands/nonverbal/some other stereotype” actually it is and you’re wrong.
just because you don’t like the description of “awkward with all absorbing interests in specific topics, aggression, compulsive behavior, repetitive movements, social isolation, learning disability, savant syndrome, sensitive to noise” doesn’t mean that an autistic person who fits those exact parameters doesn’t exist or that they’re a “stereotype.”
just because you don’t like the description of “nonverbal, intellectually disabled, epileptic, elopes, hyperactive, extreme meltdowns, flaps hands, extreme sensitivity to sound” doesn’t mean that an autistic person who is like that is a stereotype or just…doesn’t exist.
just because you’re low support needs doesn’t mean you can call high support needs symptoms a “stereotype” and “not autism.”
you can’t say “autism isn’t this” because for many people, it is. autism can be meltdowns and crying and screaming and sensory overload and violent behavior. autism can be savant syndrome and “annoying” and using advanced vocabulary and nerdy and extremely awkward. autism is and isn’t all the stereotypes because autism presents differently in everyone.
tumblr being all adults nowadays is so funny because my mutuals are either unemployed chainsmokers or Ezra, Bioengineering PHD Candidate at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
one of the important lessons to learn about adult life is that the gap between an unemployed chainsmoker and a bioengineering phd candidate is actually not that large
The point is not that we should feel sorry for women with a personal chef and a house in the Hamptons. Rather, my goal is to illuminate who gets to be both wealthy and morally worthy in our society. In the modern-day US, our concept of meritocracy is inherently gendered. This means that women bear the brunt of negative judgments about wealth—and raises questions about what women “deserve,” and on what basis, that cut across social class.
…
Not bringing in money left some of these women feeling vulnerable. A parenting expert told me, of the wealthy stay-at-home moms she worked with, “They feel so guilty that they’re wasting their degrees… They feel so ‘less than.’”
Helen (a pseudonym, like all other names in this piece), who had been an investment banker and had left her career reluctantly, told me, “[I’m] well-educated. I had a career. You know, where is all that now?” She said she sometimes felt like she was “working for” her husband. She added, “There are power dynamics, where he’s the breadwinner now, and I’m really not. And yet, I do so many things for the family that you can’t put a number on it.” Her unpaid labor is hard to measure, and therefore hard to appreciate.
Bridget worked part-time, bringing in much less money than her husband did. She said he gave her “a hard time” about spending but felt free to buy what he wanted. She put this dilemma succinctly, saying, said, “I can’t make enough money to impact our life. And how am I ever going to make enough money to deserve something, if I don’t just say I worked for this and I made this money?’” By bringing in the money, men often get the power to decide how it is spent. Equally important, they also get the right to feel like they “deserve” what they have.
The other reason wealthy stay-at-home mothers are vilified is that they are imagined to be excessive and self-indulgent consumers, in a world where over-the-top consumption is often seen as a moral failing. Women, more associated with consumers in general, bear the brunt of this kind of judgment, especially when they are thought to be spending only on themselves.
…
Stephanie prided herself on being an attentive mother, making Halloween costumes for her son and baking “beautifully decorated” cookies for his school. She also explained in detail the stresses of managing their home in Manhattan and their weekend home, saying, “I’m the one that deals with all of it.” But, she said, her husband “thinks that I’m, you know, eating bon bons all day. It’s hard.” He also hassled her about spending too much, though she protested that she bought clothes at Target and cut her own hair and nails, while he splurged on expensive meals for his friends.
When the roles were reversed, women did not exert the same judgment over their husbands’ spending. The women I interviewed who earned more than their husbands, or who brought the bulk of the money into the household through inheritance, described this state of affairs as threatening to their husbands. Rather than control their husbands’ expenditures, they went out of their way to make men feel like they were contributing too, by letting them control the family’s investments or by legally turning over some sum of money to them. So the power dynamic here is about masculinity—not just about who brings home more of the bacon.
i feel like reading this article is a good way to test whether or not you have fully accepted that misogyny does not get canceled out by anything, including obscene wealth
“Not bringing in money left some of these women feeling vulnerable.” I’m surprised this article doesn’t mention the most obvious issue with being dependent on your husband for money: how hard it is as a “wealthy” woman to leave your husband when none of your “wealth” actually belongs to you. I put “wealthy” in quotes because of course these women aren’t actually wealthy in their own right; they’re married to wealthy men, which is very different. These women have nothing of their own, which is a very scary place to be in – living in luxury while knowing that none of it is yours and it could all be taken away at any minute.
I’m speaking from experience as someone who grew up in a very wealthy neighborhood where the domestic violence shelters were full of battered women every night, most of whom would go back to their rich husbands in the morning because they were scared what would happen to them and their kids if they left. These men had the best lawyers and could take everything in a divorce, including the kids (a doubly scary option for a mother if your husband is abusive).
Money is power. When your husband is also your employer (as in, he supports you financially in exchange for which you provide domestic/emotional/childcare labor), that means he has the power to dictate what you do “on company time”, so to speak (which, since a marriage has no contract, no predetermined salary, and no fixed hours, is all the time). Many a man believes he has a right to dictate how his wife spends “his” money, including how she spends her free time, where she goes, what she wears, who she socializes with, how she raises “his” kids, and so on, because he’s paying for all of it. And the difficult thing is, so do we, because even without the misogyny we as a capitalist culture are deeply invested in the idea that paying for something gives you certain “rights” over the thing you’re paying for, and that naturally the person who “contributes” more should have a bigger say in how things get done.
This is part of the things Jouelzy was trying to explain to the hypergamy brigade.
There’s something inherently risky and dangerous about someone from an oppressed class, in this case women, being financially dependent on someone from their oppressor class, in this case men. Nothing can convince me otherwise.
If you’re bent on becoming a housewife and convinced that’s what you want to, know the risks and dangers of being financially dependent on your spouse for survival and income. And always have a contingency plan (like a savings account of your own money that he doesn’t know about) in case your spouse turns abusive, leaves you, or dies.
