100% life from concentrate
You can scroll the shelf using ← and → keys
You can scroll the shelf using ← and → keys
“This is all about how women’s bodies are consumed and are considered public property for display, comment and consumption…Women need to start talking about their daily moments because it’s the smaller stuff that affects the larger things, like rape, domestic violence, harassment in the workplace.”
– tatyana fazlalizadeh on her art series “stop telling women to smile”, which uses real women’s portraits and quotes to speak out against street harassment. for a multimedia immersion into the movement, watch the video above, read this nytimes article, & check out the photo gallery below.
one thing i love about warsan shire is her ability to tap into thoughts/emotions in a way that’s simultaneously fresh and familiar. get a glimpse of what i mean in her poem below, directed at women who are “difficult to love.” for more from the kenya born-uk raised poet, check out her book teaching my mother how to give birth:
for women who are difficult to love
you are a horse running alone
and he tries to tame you
compares you to an impossible highway
to a burning house
says you are blinding him
that he could never leave you
want anything but you
you dizzy him, you are unbearable
every woman before or after you
is doused in your name
you fill his mouth
his teeth ache with memory of taste
his body just a long shadow seeking yours
but you are always too intense
frightening in the way you want him
unashamed and sacrificial
he tells you that no man can live up to the one who
lives in your head
and you tried to change didn’t you?
closed your mouth more
tried to be softer
less volatile, less awake
but even when sleeping you could feel
him traveling away from you in his dreams
so what did you want to do love
split his head open?
you can’t make homes out of human beings
someone should have already told you that
and if he wants to leave
then let him leave
you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love
bonus: here’s a video inspired by warsan’s poem, made by andrea cortes-juarbe & christine mehr (via mona).
Four single men and four single women decide they’d like to pair up into four married couples. They’d like to choose their partners in a way that ensures their marriages are stable: that is, there are no two people who would both rather be married to each other than their current partners.
In order to help make sure they enter into stable marriages, the men and women, when they first start dating, rank members of the opposite sex in order of preference. Charlotte, for example, prefers Bingley most of all, and then Darcy, Collins and finally Wickham.
The rankings of all four women can be summarized as follows.
The men, of course, have preferences as well:
so based on the criteria, who should marry whom? post the correct couples in the comments & talk a bit about how you figured it out. also if you were single, would you ever take part in such an arrangement?
update: salute alima & jamal for getting the answer right. here’s a video breaking down the math behind the problem (also via girls’ angle).
The fight against sexism has suddenly become all the rage among politicians. How curious. How timely. How suspiciously convenient.
If you have not heard the speech from Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the floor of the Australian House of Representatives , do yourself a favor. This is one for the ages…
We have heard the poll-tested, calculated claims by politicians around the globe. We hear it in presidential debates in the United States, where the election may depend on the support of female voters, and we’ve heard it in places like Pakistan, where politicians want to benefit from the outrage over the shooting of 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai after assassins tried to kill her for defending every girl’s right to an education.
In Australia, the political battle revolved around a very unique, rather strange, set of circumstances. But Gillard’s words crystallized the source of the unease that hangs over so many people as they hear politicians courting them. How much can we believe what they say?
Much became clear after the speech in Canberra, when Gillard unloaded a sizzling rhetorical barrage on Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition, who had presented a motion he claimed was motivated by his own support of women’s equality. Gillard would have none of it.
no, she would not. instead, prime minister gillard delivered a point-by-point breakdown of the party leader’s hypocrisy that was public in viewing yet still very intimate in its attack. it’s some of the strongest political ether you’ll ever hear (as the video goes on, you can really see abbott’s soul burn slow).
more than being entertained by the spectacle though (which kinda reminded me of this), i just loved her honesty. much of politics today is a game played by our elected officials. i get it. still, the blatant attempts to use people/causes/tragedies as mere pawns in said game can be tiring so it’s refreshing when politicians are called out on it.
after you watch the video above, let me know what you think. also, have you seen any other political posturing recently that deserves to be aired out in a similar fashion?
we’re not still holding on to the “men shouldn’t cry” thing, right? seems as archaic as women not being allowed to control their own bodies (ha). i understand the need for defining some gender roles/traits. however in doing so, we have to be careful not to step what should be universal human rights.
the man in the short film above never cries but in this case, it’s not because of any cultural stereotypes. synopsis via director bradley jackson:
Ralph Winston has never cried; not when he was a baby, not when his heart was crushed by his high school sweetheart, not even when he first saw Steven Spielberg’s E.T. So when his father dies, Ralph – age 32 – decides to embark upon a true emotional journey with hopes to shed his first tear before the funeral – and before it’s not too late.
previously: i love you, will smith