I'm asking because it's something I've been trying to figure out myself. Do you have any theories as to why there is such an overlap of TERFs and people convinced corsets are Evil? Why do these beliefs go toghter?
My guess would be that it’s because they define womanhood so much by suffering, that questioning anything they’ve been told was a mechanism of women’s suffering in the past feels like a threat to them. Even though obviously nobody who says “corsets were not universal torture devices“ is saying “women weren’t oppressed during these specific eras.” It’s a threat to their idea of what the past looks like, especially womanhood in the past, and that puts them on the defensive.
They also often hate femininity at large, and the corset tends to be seen as a symbol thereof. Even though, you know… A lot of masc presenting women in the past also wore them, simply as support garments. and even some men, for back support and/or body-shaping.
And most historical costumers and dress historians who get a wide platform nowadays tends to be feminine-presenting. So TERFs see this as feminine women (traitors!) “defending” their favorite imagined symbol of patriarchal control over women’s bodies and gender presentation, and therefore go ballistic. Even though that’s not what’s happening
(Note: not everyone who expresses these views is a terf, of course. Pop culture in general still tends to believe that corsets are inherently evil, and thus it’s a very common mindset. And not even everyone who buys into the whole “historical costumers/fem dress historians are tradwives serving the patriarchy“ concept is a terf. But as you say, there is a pretty broad overlap in that latter category.)
It’s also interesting to me what their definition of defense is. A lot of them blow a gasket if you even say “the corset is a neutral garment that served practical functions for many women, and most women seem to have felt neutrally about it, though obviously some strongly liked or disliked it” or “ I and some people I know personally find corsets comfortable to wear,”and react like you just built an altar to sacrifice goats to a corset
95 notes
·
View notes
what kind of video games would egg like? and which would he play with dunk?
MINECRAFT!!! 100%!!! Egg’s method of playing Minecraft would be finding badly loaded villages and giving them beautiful renovations. Bridges, new houses, new work buildings. He’d create so many new villagers until he has a bustling, thriving village. He’s also in charge of storage, house building, and managing all the logistic stuff. Egg is building a gorgeous castle for him and Dunk meanwhile Dunk is fighting for his life in a cave. They have a system but a lot of that system stems from Dunk not trusting Egg to not die and lose all of the hard earned stuff that Dunk had grinded for only an hour before. Egg would have a retinue of animals with funny names and he’d find mods to dress the animals up in cute outfits. Rideable dragon mod and it’s named something like “Fluffy”. Not fond of the idea of killing the Ender Dragon, wants the Wither to be the final boss instead.
I think Egg would like Stardew too. Void chicken is his beloved he thinks it’s funny. He’d also steal all of the furniture from Dunk’s house and hide it in the chicken coop or cave when Dunk wasn’t looking (me). Once again he’s on farming, building duty while Dunk is fighting for his life in the mines.
This was not asked but I think Dunk is a soulsborne and soulslike fan. I can see him absolutely demolishing Elden Ring and becoming a Let Me Solo Her type figure of pop culture legend.
14 notes
·
View notes
Copied from the transcript:
“Beginning with the first essential concept for a library economy, usufruct refers to the freedom of individuals or groups in a community to access and use, but not destroy, common resources to supply their needs. This is as opposed to the limitation of access based on exclusive ownership.
“Libraries allow you to access and use books when you need them and encourage all of us to be good stewards of the books we borrow, taking care of it when we have it and returning it when we’re done, because it belongs to all of us and should be readily available for use. Imagine this principle applied to libraries of decor, libraries of furniture, or libraries of tools. Perhaps you would borrow cushions, couches, and paintings to suit one interior design taste for a few months before switching it out and trying a new style. You might borrow a shovel from the tool library to get a permablitz done one weekend and return it when you’re done so someone else can use it when they need it. Alternatively, you can keep it for as long as you want to use it. All without having to produce excessively or leave stuff wasting away in storage.
“If we want to live sustainably, we need a library economy. We need an economy based on usufruct that incentivizes producing enough lasting, durable stuff that everyone can share and use when they need it, instead of producing around planned obsolescence and excess, wasting crucial time, energy and resources. A library economy would be an essential component in a move towards degrowth.
“The second essential concept for a library economy is the irreducible minimum, which is the guaranteed provision of the means necessary to sustain life, the level of living that no one should ever fall below, regardless of the size of their individual contribution to the community. This includes access to adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare.
“Libraries as they exist now provide free access to knowledge, but knowledge is only one component of an individual’s and a community’s self-actualisation, which a library economy should be organised to help reach. Libraries of consumables like food, drugs, and toiletries may be difficult to imagine, which is why in addition to libraries of things, a library economy should also have dispensaries of necessities. Farming cooperatives, in collaboration with cooking collectives, could work to ensure the entire community is provided with a range of healthy food options from the local and regional gardens, farms, and food forests. The popular assembly could organise with building cooperatives to establish a range of housing options to accommodate the needs of each and every member of the community. An emphasis on slow fashion, by a broad and diverse network of designers and tailors, as opposed to fast fashion, would ensure that everyone’s wearing clothing that lasts in the styles that they like.
“A library economy would require a vast reorientation of our priorities from the centrality of capital and competition to the centrality of humanity and cooperation, which brings us to the final core concept for a library economy: complementarity.
“Some people are abled, some people are disabled. Some people are bakers, some people are shoemakers. Some people will farm and some people will sing. People will have a say in how they labour and how they leisure. None of them need to be defined by or limited to the things that they do, but all should find joy or satisfaction or accomplishment in the things that they do for the sake of doing them.
“Together, we will have all the bread, shoes, veggies, and songs we could ask for. And for the things that no one enjoys, as I said in my video on a post-work society, we can find ways to rotate, gamify, or transform the tasks that need doing to make the drudge less drudgerous.
“A library economy should be based upon a complex social ecosystem that fulfills the many necessary roles a society needs filling. Complementarity is a way of looking at non-hierarchical differences within a society as something generative, where each person contributes a small part to an outcome greater than the sum of its parts. Complementarity can be found within communities, ecologies, technologies, and even typical libraries, both in the relationship between libraries and their patrons and in the roles that libraries fulfill, such as research, information architecture, and collection management. Our approach to nature must similarly be based in complementarity. Rather than maintaining an antagonistic, dominating relationship with first nature, we should strive to find a complementary melding of first and second nature, generating a third nature that is reciprocal and sustainable."
...
“Now imagine what a world based on a library economy would look like. Perhaps it would draw some inspiration from the 5 Laws of Library Science, first conceived by Indian librarian S. R. Ranganathan in 1931.
“The first law is that books are for use. Things are meant to be used, not hoarded. Made accessible, not shut away. Preservation and storage are important, Ranganathan himself noted, but more important than that is that consideration is paid to access-related issues, such as location, hours of operation, comfort, and the quality of service.
“The second law states that every person has their book and the third law declares that every book has its reader. Applied more broadly, this means that we should strive to develop a broad collection of things, whether furniture, decor, books, vehicles, or housing that would serve a wide variety of needs and wants, no matter how niche, understanding that those sorts of accommodations are generative of abundant life.
“The fourth law says that we should try to save the time of the user. Libraries require a lot of coordination and effort to maintain, even more so if we intend to apply their concepts upon broader society. Thus, it is vital that we develop systems, services, applications, workflows, guides, and frameworks that allow us to most efficiently manage the resources of the libraries, allowing us to do more with less.
“Lastly, the fifth law reminds us that a library is a growing organism. The aim of a library economy should never be to rigidly establish itself and continue as is. A library economy must be dynamic, ever growing, and evolving in both the quality of the collections held and services provided and in the quantity of those who are effectively served. The project is never complete.”
61 notes
·
View notes