also i literally do not care whether you prefer pads or tampons but the fact that in almost every situation where free period supplies are available, they’re tampons, and this is just assumed to be fine (or people like campaigning for “free tampons” rather than “free menstrual products”) upsets me bc there are a lot of people who use pads who cannot use tampons and i don’t understand why tampons are considered not just the default but the only option worth mentioning
like i’ve never been able to use a tampon comfortably and functionally. there are plenty of people who cannot use tampons or prefer not to use them, and they require a good amount of education to be used safely. that’s not to say that tampons shouldn’t be provided but that we shouldn’t be forcing people to use them bc they’re all that is offered
also a lot of cultures tend to prefer pads cause they’re structurally familiar!!
The European Parliament voted against the Copyright Directive in a 318-278 vote. It will be debated in full in September leading to a new proposal. We won this battle, but the war is not over yet.
Wait is this real? Because I’ve just seen another post saying it’s been approved, but maybe that one was a bit older?
If anyone is still buying the “Article 13 is a good thing!”, know that Wikipedia is worried about it. If that doesn’t ring any bells, I don’t know what will.
can we please stop pretending heterosexual relationships are inferior to gay relationships? i’m pan but it’s not cool
i don’t mean this to sound rude in any way but being condescending to our straight counterparts is not the way to achieve lgbtq+ acceptance and equality. all healthy relationships are just as good and cool and positive and beautiful, let’s agree on that.
all healthy relationships are just as good and cool and positive and beautiful, let’s agree on that.
Preach
also it’s really alienating to bisexuals and pansexuals who are interested in a m/f relationship or are in one. and like, straight trans people
in my experience, children whos parents kept them on extremely tight leashes for fear of them experiencing bad things or coming face to face with personal tragedy or to prevent them from making mistakes often end up fucking up the most as adults, which thereby allows the parent to come back in with the “i told you so” clause when the kid is like “hey actually i think i want to NOT live under your thumb for a while” and they do and something catastrophic happens like money mismanagement or eviction etc
and it becomes something of a self fulfilling prophecy but like its almost entirely the fault of the parent for not 1. properly equipping their child to cope mentally/emotionally when shit goes fuckways and 2. saying “i told you so” rather than “ok something bad happened, let’s figure out how to unfuck it together”
having a parent who was both sort of a helicopter and emotionally distant fucked me up in new and exciting ways but i am like, slowly figuring out how to not be a complete mess as i inch into my 30s and i think its probably important that folks younger than me know that if you had a parent like i did, someone who would berate you for your mistakes and give you “i told you so’s” instead of being like, u know, supportive and helpful, ur fuckups do not mean that you’re like, inherently dumb/stupid/incapable of living independently, it just means that somewhere along the way you got bad advice or no advice and you’re doing your best to sort through life any way you know how.
its ok to ask for help, believe it or not, the majority of adults and the majority of your peers dont actually want to shit on you further while your life is falling to pieces. its ok to ask for reassurance or advice and its okay to advocate for yourself and tell people that their unhelpful commentary is not what you need.
life’s weird and its getting weirder but like hey, we have each other at least, so thats something
Dr. Michelle Martin is a researcher and professor at California State University, Fullerton. She has a Masters of Social Work, Masters in Global Policy, and a Ph.D. in Peace Studies (Political Science). She teaches Social Welfare Policy in the Master of Social Work program.
The following is her write-up on the separation of families at the border. She dispells a lot of common myths going around and provides sources which are linked. This might be helpful in your personal debates and discussions.
———————————————-
There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration’s new “zero tolerance” policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the southern border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research…As a professor at a local Cal State, I research and write about these issues, so here, I wrote the following to make it easier for you:
Myth: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton.
FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the “brainchild” of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, and some allege to be used as a bargaining chip. The policy was approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit.
Myth: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration.
FALSE. Annual trends show that arrests for undocumented entry are at a 46 year low, and undocumented crossings dropped in 2007, with a net loss (more people leaving than arriving). Deportations have increased steadily though (spiking in 1996 and more recently), because several laws that were passed since 1996 have made it more difficult to gain legal status for people already here, and thus increased their deportations (I address this later under the myth that it’s the Democrats’ fault). What we mostly have now are people crossing the border illegally because they’ve already been hired by a US company, or because they are seeking political asylum. Economic migrants come to this country because our country has kept the demand going. But again, many of these people impacted by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy appear to be political asylum-seekers.
Myth: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs.
FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rather than processing their claims, according to witness accounts, it appears as though they have been taken into custody on the spot and had their children ripped from their arms. The ACLU alleges that this practice violates the US Asylum Act, and the UN asserts that it violates the UN Treaty on the State of Refugees, one of the few treaties the US has ratified. The ACLU asserts that this policy is an illegal act on the part of the United States government, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible.
Myth: We’re a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get.
FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. Our government (under both parties) has always been aware that US companies recruit workers in the poorest parts of Mexico for cheap labor, and ICE (and its predecessor INS) has looked the other way because this underground economy benefits our country to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Thus, even though many of the people crossing the border now are asylum-seekers, those who are economic migrants (migrant workers) likely have been recruited here to do jobs Americans will not do.
Myth: The children have to be separated from their parents because the parents must be arrested and it would be cruel to put children in jail with their parents.
FALSE. First, in the case of economic migrants crossing the border illegally, criminal prosecution has not been the legal norm, and families have historically been kept together at all cost. Also, crossing the border without documentation is typically a misdemeanor not requiring arrest, but rather has been handled in a civil proceeding. Additionally, parents who have been detained have historically been detained with their children in ICE “family residential centers,” again, for civil processing. The Trump administration’s shift in policy is for political purposes only, not legal ones.
Myth: We have rampant fraud in our asylum process, the proof of which is the significant increase we have in the number of people applying for asylum.
FALSE. The increase in asylum seekers is a direct result of the increase in civil conflict and violence across the globe. While some people may believe that we shouldn’t allow any refugees into our country because “it’s not our problem,” neither our current asylum law, nor our ideological foundation as a country support such an isolationist approach. There is very little evidence to support Sessions’ claim that abuse of our asylum-seeking policies is rampant. Also, what Sessions failed to mention is that the majority of asylum seekers are from China, not South of the border.
Here is a very fair and balanced assessment of his statements: [ source ]
Myth: The Democrats caused this, “it’s their law.“
FALSE. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused this, the Trump administration did (although the Republicans could fix this today, and have refused). I believe what this myth refers to is the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which were both passed under Clinton in 1996. These laws essentially made unauthorized entry into the US a crime (typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders), but under both Republicans and Democrats, these cases were handled through civil deportation proceedings, not a criminal proceeding, which did not require separation. And again, even in cases where detainment was required, families were always kept together in family residential centers, unless the parents were deemed unfit (as mentioned above). Thus, Trump’s assertion that he hates this policy but has no choice but to separate the parents from their children, because the Democrats “gave us this law” is false and nothing more than propaganda designed to compel negotiation on bad policy.
Myth: The parents and children will be reunited shortly, once the parents’ court cases are finalized.
FALSE. Criminal court is a vastly different beast than civil court proceedings. Also, the children are being processed as unaccompanied minors (“unaccompanied alien children”), which typically means they are in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Under normal circumstances when a child enters the country without his or her parent, ORR attempts to locate a family member within a few weeks, and the child is then released to a family member, or if a family member cannot be located, the child is placed in a residential center (anywhere in the country), or in some cases, foster care. Prior to Trump’s new policy, ORR was operating at 95% capacity, and they simply cannot effectively manage the influx of 2000+ children, some as young as 4 months old. Also, keep in mind, these are not unaccompanied minor children, they have parents. There is great legal ambiguity on how and even whether the parents will get their children back because we are in uncharted territory right now. According to the ACLU lawsuit (see below), there is currently no easy vehicle for reuniting parents with their children. Additionally, according to a May 2018 report, numerous cases of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were found to have occurred in these residential centers.
LIKELY FALSE. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 5/6/18, and a recent court ruling denied the government’s motion to dismiss the suit. The judge deciding the case stated that the Trump Administration’s policy is “brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.” The case is moving forward because it was deemed to have legal merit.
Site Title 