bathgrl

[bathgrl]

I never post but here's something that I think the US and the Philippines can agree on

❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗

ACTIVISM =/= TERROSISM

❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗

The Philippines is attempting to pass a bill that would basically take away the people's right to freedom of speech, among others. It would:

Allow the state and its forces to determine what constitutes the definition of terrorism

Let state institutions act by any suspicion against people that they deem a threat, as if that alone is enough basis for being counted as a terrorist

Wiretap for 60-90 days

Carry out WARRANTLESS ARRESTS

And basically allow the government to kill anyone who criticizes them or opposes them, labeling those people, who are just stating their opinions, as TERRORISTS

Here's he summary of the bill:

And here is what supposedly constitutes as "terrorism"

Please please PLEASE do not let ("president") Duterte have this. This is is basically Martial Law without the label. Everything will be under the government's control. Our voices will be squandered by this bill. We're having so much problems, from poverty to Covid-19, and our government would very much rather focus on THIS BULL$#!T instead of people STARVING AND DYING ON THE STREETS

ACTIVISM ≠ TERRORISM 📢📣📢

BLACK LIVES MATTER ✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿

LGBTQ+ LIVES MATTER 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

AND PLEASE ALL STAY SAFE FROM THE GLOBAL FRIGGIN PANDEMIC 😷😷

[bathgrl]

Goldilocks Syndrome: Paralysis by Analysis & Option Overdose

We live in a modern world of technology and mass industry where the options are instant and unlimited…

For many of us in first world regions, access to goods and services and the consequent choices are endless, and right at our fingertips.

Amazon.com and convenient consumer hubs can provide us with whatever we wish at the click of a mouse…or can they?

It seems that, for many of us, having all of these options tends to backfire.

Instead of getting exactly what we want when we want it, the instant gratification model of today’s consumerism leaves us feeling less satisfied and unsure of what it is we actually want.

I often feel like little Goldilocks when I’m perusing at the store. (And not just because I bear a striking physical resemblance.)

Goldilocks tried the variety of porridge soups, the various chairs, the different beds, and pondered her options, all the while being distracted from the real issue at hand: the danger of deep-seated dissatisfaction and hanging out in a bear den.

(Also, in the original story, the bears set Goldilocks on fire. So there’s that.)

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the array of choices facing them each day, each moment, is totally overwhelming?

Who hasn’t experienced the all-consuming paralysis by analysis, or even the grave danger of credit card overdraft, when it comes to shopping at Target?

Does anyone else constantly find themselves falling down the black hole of options?

I got rid of my Target Red Card at one point to try to cut back on my spending and soul-sucking trips into the black hole; but then I got my own apartment and signed up again for the savings.

What I mean to say is, look, I’m guilty. Not all stores are villains. Not all shoppers are frantic maniacs or mindless drones; but don’t you feel like one sometimes when you’re shopping online or at a big retail store?

I’m interested in solutions for this issue. One I’ve found to be helpful is shopping at second hand stores, where there’s less stuff in general, and even less stuff that is in good condition to purchase or use. It’s pretty great spending an afternoon at Savers treasure-hunting with a friend, and I’d recommend trying it out sometime.

Another solution is shopping at small local stores, or online at fair trade shops. Again, less stuff in these spaces, which equals less shopping trauma and remorse. In addition to being less overwhelming, these solutions also help solve the issue of guilty sleepless nights haunted by production slave labor.

Feel free to share how you deal with this issue, or if you think I’m full of crap and Amazon and Target shopping are the best thing since sliced bread.

I’m all ears!

Just remember that time you ran to restroom at Wal-mart and cried into a scratchy paper towel after you spent all of your allowance in one fell swoop.

And the next time you find yourself paralyzed and consumed by the fire of anxiety in a huge conglomerate retail store, don’t say Goldilocks and I didn’t warn you.

<3 Taysu

[bathgrl]

[bathgrl]

[bathgrl]

dog categories

[bathgrl]

[bathgrl]

Take your anxiety meds with Red Bull to create SLOWFAST, the hot new emotion teens are raving about!

SlowFast™: It Feels Incredibly Bad.

[bathgrl]

A woman after my own heart ❤️

“It was Emma Thompson, the politically outspoken newly anointed dame commander of the British Empirewho made the first real definitive statement on Lasseter, and one of the most significant decisions in post-#MeToo Hollywood.

In mid-February, it was reported that the two-time Oscar winner had pulled out of Skydance’s highly touted animation feature “Luck,” citing her concerns about Lasseter’s hiring. According to her representatives, from the moment the hire was announced, Thompson began conversations about extricating herself from the project; she officially withdrew Jan. 20.

In a letter she sent to Skydance management three days later, she acknowledged the complications caused by a star withdrawing from a project, including the effect her decision would have on the director, the rest of the cast and the crew. But in the end, she wrote, the questions raised by the Lasseter hire made it impossible for her to remain in the film.”

Read the full piece here

Emma Thompson’s letter to Skydance 

“As you know, I have pulled out of the production of “Luck” — to be directed by the very wonderful Alessandro Carloni. It feels very odd to me that you and your company would consider hiring someone with Mr. Lasseter’s pattern of misconduct given the present climate in which people with the kind of power that you have can reasonably be expected to step up to the plate.

I realise that the situation — involving as it does many human beings — is complicated. However these are the questions I would like to ask:

If a man has been touching women inappropriately for decades, why would a woman want to work for him if the only reason he’s not touching them inappropriately now is that it says in his contract that he must behave “professionally”?

If a man has made women at his companies feel undervalued and disrespected for decades, why should the women at his new company think that any respect he shows them is anything other than an act that he’s required to perform by his coach, his therapist and his employment agreement? The message seems to be, “I am learning to feel respect for women so please be patient while I work on it. It’s not easy.”

Much has been said about giving John Lasseter a “second chance.” But he is presumably being paid millions of dollars to receive that second chance. How much money are the employees at Skydance being paid to GIVE him that second chance?

If John Lasseter started his own company, then every employee would have been given the opportunity to choose whether or not to give him a second chance. But any Skydance employees who don’t want to give him a second chance have to stay and be uncomfortable or lose their jobs. Shouldn’t it be John Lasseter who has to lose HIS job if the employees don’t want to give him a second chance?

Skydance has revealed that no women received settlements from Pixar or Disney as a result of being harassed by John Lasseter. But given all the abuse that’s been heaped on women who have come forward to make accusations against powerful men, do we really think that no settlements means that there was no harassment or no hostile work environment? Are we supposed to feel comforted that women who feel that their careers were derailed by working for Lasseter DIDN’T receive money?

I hope these queries make the level of my discomfort understandable. I regret having to step away because I love Alessandro so much and think he is an incredibly creative director. But I can only do what feels right during these difficult times of transition and collective consciousness raising.

I am well aware that centuries of entitlement to women’s bodies whether they like it or not is not going to change overnight. Or in a year. But I am also aware that if people who have spoken out — like me — do not take this sort of a stand then things are very unlikely to change at anything like the pace required to protect my daughter’s generation.

Yours most sincerely,

Emma Thompson”

[bathgrl]

“A few days ago, I was having a bad morning: my train tickets were expensive, my train was delayed, and my coffee was cold. But I cheered myself up by playing a game on my commute. The game is called Patriarchy Chicken, and the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men.

The point of Patriarchy Chicken is not just that you get where you’re going marginally faster (although you do) or that you irritate a number of men (which you also do). The point is that men have been socialised, for their entire lives, to take up space. Men who would never express these thoughts out loud have nevertheless been brought up to believe that their right to occupy space takes precedent over anyone else’s right to be there. They spread their legs on tubes and trains, they bellow across coffee shops and guffaw in pubs, and they never, ever give way. 

Women have not been socialised to take up space. Women have been socialised to give way, to alleviate, to conciliate, and to step to the side.

This is so ingrained that we don’t even think about it. We might stand up in meetings and make our point even when we know a man will take the credit; we might dutifully delete the exclamation marks from our emails so as not to undermine ourselves – but we will still step to the side.”

 Read the full piece here 

[bathgrl]

I’m no longer disrespecting myself.

I’m no longer talking myself out of opportunities.

I’m no longer psyching myself out and worrying about what could go wrong in the future to the point that I stop working on my goals.

I’m no longer self harming.

I’m no longer doubting myself.

I’m no longer belittling myself.

[bathgrl]

WUT

[bathgrl]

💯

Accurate representation of my brain today. Mental Health Check In: How are you feeling? (at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina) https://www.instagram.com/p/BuUq_01FmUI/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=15c8xiiz2l1ud

[bathgrl]

😱

“cOnSeNtInG sEx WoRkErS are just privileged rich white girls!”

[bathgrl]

“The world is overpopulated.”

Nope.

“Well, that’s just carbon emissions. What about places for all those people to live?”

If the world’s population all lived in one city that was as densely populated as Manhattan, that city would be the size of Ecuador. The space taken up by ourselves and our toys is actually rather insignificant next to that taken up by our farmland.

“Ah-hah! Farmland! We’re not producing enough food for all those people!”

The problem here is we are insanely wasteful with our food.

Firstly, half of all food grown in the US goes straight into the dumpster.

Secondly, we grow it very inefficiently. We could very easily increase the food yield of a given area of land by building a greenhouse on it (which also reduces water loss) and using poly-cultures instead of mono-cultures; the reason our preferred method is open-air mono-culture farms, which are susceptible to erosion and blight and requires a god-awful amount of water to stay hydrated, is that labor is expensive and land is cheap.

In fact, if we took it even further–growing our food in carbon dioxide-rich environments lit with artificial lighting 24 hours a day (or at least at night)–you only need 1-2000 square feet of farmland per person. Admittedly, you pretty much have to have fusion power for this to be an environmentally and economically viable option, but still; the point is, we could easily condense our environmental footprint by a shit-ton (and even more options will be available in the future) without decreasing our population one iota.

“There is still a maximum carrying capacity the planet has.”

Indeed there is. And do you know what that carrying capacity is? It’s ten trillion. And the cut off isn’t space or resources–it’s waste heat. The things we’d have to do to get there aren’t exactly the sort of things we could do overnight–hell, we don’t actually know how to fusion yet–but they’re all well within the realm of the physically possible.

[bathgrl]

They/Them Headshot by Matt Hunsaker https://www.instagram.com/p/Bmg9Fy9gnXs/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1osdei7k9sdl2

[bathgrl]

Yum

[bathgrl]

“The world is overpopulated.”

Nope.

“Well, that’s just carbon emissions. What about places for all those people to live?”

If the world’s population all lived in one city that was as densely populated as Manhattan, that city would be the size of Ecuador. The space taken up by ourselves and our toys is actually rather insignificant next to that taken up by our farmland.

“Ah-hah! Farmland! We’re not producing enough food for all those people!”

The problem here is we are insanely wasteful with our food.

Firstly, half of all food grown in the US goes straight into the dumpster.

Secondly, we grow it very inefficiently. We could very easily increase the food yield of a given area of land by building a greenhouse on it (which also reduces water loss) and using poly-cultures instead of mono-cultures; the reason our preferred method is open-air mono-culture farms, which are susceptible to erosion and blight and requires a god-awful amount of water to stay hydrated, is that labor is expensive and land is cheap.

In fact, if we took it even further–growing our food in carbon dioxide-rich environments lit with artificial lighting 24 hours a day (or at least at night)–you only need 1-2000 square feet of farmland per person. Admittedly, you pretty much have to have fusion power for this to be an environmentally and economically viable option, but still; the point is, we could easily condense our environmental footprint by a shit-ton (and even more options will be available in the future) without decreasing our population one iota.

“There is still a maximum carrying capacity the planet has.”

Indeed there is. And do you know what that carrying capacity is? It’s ten trillion. And the cut off isn’t space or resources–it’s waste heat. The things we’d have to do to get there aren’t exactly the sort of things we could do overnight–hell, we don’t actually know how to fusion yet–but they’re all well within the realm of the physically possible.