I am dumbfounded by CBC’s reaction to the hit on Orpik by Shawn Thornton tonight. They sat there and essentially used this disgusting incident to advocate why fighting should remain an important part of the game. PJ stock’s argument was pretty much that the fear of being beat up by someone else was more of an incentive to not hit someone, than paying a fine or, you know, having a moral compass.
Some people may agree with this, and perhaps that may be the case with the current state of things, but it doesn’t make it any less fucked up. He, and the rest of the panel who agreed with him, essentially have advocated the use of bullying as the best deterrent to delivering bad hits.
What the fuck is that nonsense, and coming from a public broadcaster? How is it that we’ve allowed a double standard to grow for what happens on and off the ice of a hockey game? How is it that grown adults see this as a completely legitimate excuse, essentially blaming the victim (Orpik) in the process (“if he just fought Thornton this wouldn’t have happened”)? It’s disgusting and it debases the game and it’s players, who apparently are seen as too dumb or uncaring about others to understand the concept of a bad hit.
But, sadly, apparently this opinion is in the minority. I’ll just silently fume in the corner, and take solace in the fact that come next season CBC won’t have any Canadian hockey broadcasting rights for a long, long time.
(and before any of you Boston Bruins supporters get on my back about this, the Neal knee on Marchand was equally disgusting).
“We as women are trained to see ourselves as cheap imitations of fashion photographs, rather than seeing fashion photographs as cheap imitations of women.”—Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth (via spoookywinchesters)
"I think I’ve finally, really and truly gotten to the root of why her comments bug me so much.
Rashida is setting up a false dichotomy. Her comments are basically saying the following, in stated order:
-Here is a list of things that make the patriarchy smile
-Feminism is anti-patriarchy
-To be a feminist you must never do things that make the patriarchy smile
Sorry Rashida, but no.
Do you know why I started shaving my legs? Because the patriarchy told me leg hair was gross and unfeminine.
Do you know why I continued to shave my legs after finding feminism? Because I fucking like how my legs feel when they’re smooth. I do it much much less now, (currently going on about 2 months post shave atm) but when it happens, it is a personal choice that has nothing to do with the patriarchy.
Same with my cleavage. Do you know why I started wearing busty tops? Because the patriarchy told me that was sexy.
Do you know why I continue to wear busty tops after finding feminism? Because I fucking love my tits. They’re big and awesome and I naturally have what millions of women have to go under the knife to get. I like my tits so much that sometimes I want to show them to other people. BECAUSE THEY’RE AWESOME!
What is bugging me about Rashida’s comments is the implication that a woman’s choice, nay afeminist’s choice, will never, ever, ever, ever happen to coincide with the patriarchy’s agenda. Nope.
You know what else the patriarchy wants? For women to be barefoot and pregnant. Do you know what some feminists want? To be motherfucking barefoot and pregnant. And that is totally fine. Jesus.
Her comments are basically saying that anytime a woman makes a choice that happens to make the patriarchy smile (regardless of her personal motivations for that choice) she is doing feminism wrong.
"Are some people better than others? You might wonder what kind of a question that is. On the one hand, there’s no controversy—some people are smarter than others, some are more creative, some are stronger or faster, and some are kinder or more virtuous. So, if that’s all we’re asking, the answer is obvious. In certain respects and in particular domains, some people are clearly better than others. But if we’re asking whether some people are just better human beings in general, it becomes much harder to answer the question.
What do you get for the designer who has everything? How about nothing? Helvetica The Perfume is literally just water, or “modernism distilled.” Created as a gag gift by creative collective Guts and Glory, each bottle costs $62 plus shipping.
"This typeface was to have no intrinsic meaning, allowing the content to convey the message. … It is in this spirit that we have created the ultimate Modernist perfume–a scent distilled down to only the purest and most essential elements to allow you, the content, to convey your message with the utmost clarity."
“Each of us needs something of an island in his life—if not an actual island, at least some place, or space in time, in which to be himself, free to cultivate his differences from others.”—John Keats, Of Time and an Island (via bookmania)
“Technology is usually fairly neutral. It’s like a hammer, which can be used to build a house or to destroy someone’s home. The hammer doesn’t care. It is almost always up to us to determine whether the technology is good or bad.”—
Noam Chomsky, answering a question from an 11-year-old named Honor on whether technology is always good. It’s the perfect answer, if you ask me.
Chomsky’s words come from Does My Goldfish Know Who I Am?, a collection of young people’s questions answered by great scientists and thinkers. It’s ample proof that many of our greatest questions are simple ones, and their answers delight minds both brilliant and new.