1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
rtrixie
calyxofawildflower

Hey let’s destroy the pernicious myth that preteens were regularly marrying in medieval and early modern Europe and were having children as young teenagers. It’s just not true. Church records show the typical age people got married was around 18-23. Sure, around a third of brides were pregnant at the time of their marriage, but premarital sex was actually completely fine in medieval and early modern Europe if the couple intended to marry. (Oh look! Another historical fact the Victorian period completely mangled!)

Very young girls were not having babies in medieval times, people. The only people who ever bring this non-fact up are paedophiles looking to defend their dangerous paraphilia. So cut it out. Stop spreading this myth. It’s not historical, it’s not factual, it’s not true.

calyxofawildflower

By the way the texts in support of these facts are here and here.

magister-amoris

“Emerging evidence is eroding the stereotype of medieval child marriage. Goldberg and Smith’s work on low- and lower-middle-status women has refuted Hajnal’s argument for generally early marriage for medieval women. Even Razi’s ‘early’ age at marriage for girls in Halesowen hardly indicates child marriage, as a large portion of his sample married between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two… .  Goldberg has offered evidence from fourteenth and fifteenth-century Yorkshire showing that urban girls tended to marry  in their early to mid twenties and rural girls married in their late teens to early twenties, and both groups married men who were close to them in age.” (Kim M. Phillips, Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, c. 1270-1540, p. 37 (x).

Bolded for emphasis.

calyxofawildflower

Reblogging this as a reminder since I just saw another long thread on a social media website about how “the stigma of marrying at age 13-15 is recent”. No it isn’t, you’re just a pedophilia apologist.

mitigatedchaos

This is fascinating, since “well the Medievals married that young” is used to wave off some of the side-effects of polygamy in certain foreign cultures today.  But if that isn’t true, then that means culture or religion is responsible and not just economics like we were led to believe.

Source: calyxofawildflower politics

More you might like

wirehead-wannabe
nothingismere

exhijabifashion:

Unpopular opinion: intersectional feminism is responsible for a lot of collateral damage that it is becoming increasingly urgent to address. It presents itself as comprehensive in its revelatory powers re: marginalized experience even though it actually enables silencing and reinforced marginalization of the most marginalized of such experiences by virtue of its very theoretical structure. Its ideals are not practically supported by its theoretical tools due to their own structural flaws.

In brief, upholding positionality as a criterion of discourse and ultimately decentering privileged commentary in attempt to define narrative authority ends up fostering oppressive dogma and suspension of necessary critical inquiry in the very attempts to do the opposite, and in ways that large-scale matter to the lives and plights of the most marginalized. […]

This may be a relatively digestible bit of expansion copied from another thread. For context, someone was musing about how third wave feminism seems to have a severe problem recognizing issues like misogyny and homophobia and generally identifying social conservativism within Muslim communities:

Honestly I think this is partially wrought by intersectionality theory itself. It tries to unravel and juxtapose nuanced experiences within marginalized groups, but is absolutely ill equipped to do so because it falls into the trap of crystallizing identities and experiences to the testimony of visible community voices without interrogating those voices to begin with, because its very model undermines interrogation. It hinges on mechanisms like positionality to center the voices and experiences of oppressed people, such that representatives of those people are granted authority and outsiders are considered incapable of accessing the knowledge and experience to challenge that.

Except when those representatives given authority by virtue of their positionality are themselves bound to a conservative institution and dedicated to a cultural zeitgeist that is at odds with the values underlying intersectional theory to begin with, while intersectionality itself put roadblocks against any capacity to question or challenge such positionality and upholds a model of specifically decentering critique from outsiders, you get people who believe they are being the most authentic and supportive they can by refusing to extend models of critique that are not necessarily limited by their position as outsiders by sheer virtue of how they are positioned. So they eat all the BS up and the Linda Sarsours of marginalized communities continue to be upheld as representatives beyond reproach. And that’s third wave feminism ‘done right’.

There’s something perversely lacking in self awareness about the very theoretical models people take as authoritative right now precisely because they attempt radical self awareness.

I think a symptom of is that the moral and epistemic clarity of posts like http://nothingismere.tumblr.com/post/154828689842/ozymandias271-questions-that-will-apparently-be is weirdly uncommon. Like, this is such a bizarre exchange:

Querent - “How can I figure out what I should be doing to fight racism without burdening people of color by constantly asking them what I should do?”

@ozymandias271 - “You have a brain? Presumably you can use it to assess the quality of information yourself? Why are you making people of color do this for you?”

It’s one thing to recommend a debiasing intervention (e.g., ‘people under-weight  evidence in the form of self-reports of others’ experiences when those people have lived very different lives; assign more weight to compensate’), and another thing to act as though the debiasing intervention replaces normal weighing-of-the-evidence altogether.

First-hand accounts from the disprivileged are a weight on the scale, not a qualitatively higher form of evidence/argument; obscuring that fact and talking in non-quantitative terms encourages epistemic learned helplessness like in Ozy’s post.

wirehead-wannabe

I mean, the exchange makes perfect sense once you take into account that Querent readers are trying first and foremost to ensure that they don’t get yelled at, and that openly admitting to that would get them yelled at. Ozy’s approach is the one that actually works better for everyone in the absence of any risk of yelling.

Source: nothingismere gender politics feminism

Anonymous asked:

Can you read all your posts under “gender politics” tag and truthfully say that you want to live when the life is like that? I couldn't.

Dearest Anon-kun,

My representation is a bit more dire than how I actually interpret the situation, in part because it’s intended as a counter-balance to mainstream feminism, which strips women of their agency and refuses to critically examine their role in the social dynamics which create these situations.

“Women are powerless” is really quite deeply normalized almost everywhere!  It’s very insidious.

Comments regarding even cishet neurotypical women should be regarded as generalizations that do not uniformly apply to the population, and many subgroups don’t necessarily fit them.  Additionally, low-status women also exist.  In fact, women that don’t fit this mold are more common in my subcultures!

Additionally, 

1) I have a reasonable shot at making it to the Transhuman era.

2) I have a close relationship to my ex WRT expressed vulnerability & female companionship, though not sexually.

3) Have you observed the number of self-identified “traps” and other such individuals among the Alt Right?  I believe this represents a sign of an impending Male Gender Meltdown, the consequences of which are hard to predict.  Overall, I do think progress is being made, as indicated by the appearance of multiple male gender movements.

Also,

All my exes are bisexual (and therefore have no set reason to behave in a certain pattern of attraction), and this blog will continue to not disclose my sex/gender.

Kind Regards,
Miti

P.S. If you are secretly the tumblr user known as BA, this blog hopes for your swift recovery regardless of whether that is low in probability.  If you are secretly tumblr user RO, this blog hopes for an increase in your available useful energy.

gender politics
mutant-aesthetic
twitter.com

Julian Assange 🔹 on Twitter

“10/ Here's Singapore's long term prime minister Lee Kuan Yew:”
a-sleepygoldenstorm

What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics.  

Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized electoral politics.

mitigatedchaos

Yes, my fear is that Lee Kuan Yew is right.

Source: a-sleepygoldenstorm politics torches in the night racepol

I actually suspect that the switch to identity politics over class politics may have been based on a growing ineffectiveness of class politics.

“BUT THE POOR!” lost ground as more cached arguments were built up against it, even if it wasn’t entirely justified.

“BUT RACISM!” still had a lot of bite and could circumvent some of those cached arguments.  So, it’s natural to shift to it and build the platform around it.

It had a lot of bite, anyway.

There was always the focus on what was morally right, even in the minds of people who claimed they didn’t believe in morality, over what was effective policy, so now we get a lot of talk about guilt, or about pie in the sky ideas of “dismantling the systems of X oppression requires dismantling capitalism” (and people remember how “we need to dismantle capitalism” went last time), and not so much about “we should distribute multivitamins to the poor.”

I mean, that does sometimes get through, but the zeitgeist doesn’t seem to care about it as much as it cares about language policing and thinks that beneficial policies will just naturally unfold once everyone acknowledges their sin.

politics
wirehead-wannabe

New term to describe people I don’t like: “Discourse X”

wirehead-wannabe

We keep having trouble coming up with good ways to describe the sorts of e.g. feminism that are harmful and abusive, so I propose that we go with “Discourse Feminism.” Discourse Feminism:

- focuses on naming and shaming individuals as a means of ideological enforcement and/or abuse

- tends to misuse academic terms, often in ways that are the exact opposite of their original meaning. Example: patriarchy, intersectionality, emotional labor

- really just wants a list of who the Bad People are so they can accuse anyone they dislike of being a Bad Person

- puts excessive focus on making sure people use the right identity labels (“if you think women are people you’re a feminist!) and PC language relative to actual substance

- treats anyone who disagrees as an Enemy To The Movement

But this is by no means limited to feminism! You can use it to describe the bad parts of any political group:

Discourse Social Justice
Discourse Anti-racism
Discourse Men’s Rights
Discourse Sex Positivity
Discourse Christianity
Discourse Communism

mitigatedchaos

“Sh-shut up. I’m not a D-discourse!”

“Yes you are. Cast her into the pit!”

gender politics shtpost
sinesalvatorem

Anonymous asked:

It's not how white you are on the outside that counts, but how white you are, in your heart.

sinesalvatorem answered:

Leukemia is not actually a good thing, anon. If your blood is over-saturated with white cells then please seek medical assistance.

mitigatedchaos

I just saw an article last week suggesting that using identity politics in the US was a bad plan because the majority can practice identity politics, too, and the definition of “white” has expanded in the past.

I’m pretty hyped.  What exciting new races or ethnic groups will be considered “white” in the future?  Could Asian-Latin fusion cuisine become the next official white people food?  When will they be issued their official White Man™ polo shirts?

race politics politics maybe a shtpost

Anonymous asked:

Tbh I really like your politics but find your writing style and incessant self-meming insufferable.

The memeing (#augmented reality break, #chronofelony, #the year is, etc) serves several purposes…

  1. Provide a break from the politics for people that do like it (which is some of them - the guy tagged in the last post about a children’s rhyme on the cybersecurity of cybernetic augmentations almost immediately liked it)
  2. Lower the tone of the blog from Serious Politics into something more playful (and more closely matching my actual energy/focus/seriousness levels)
  3. Obscure my race and sex, which both constitute potential Discourse Attack Surfaces
  4. Fuck over certain kinds of blog attacks by pre-establishing a range for spontaneous tone-shifting.  Various bad-faith social attacks do not deserve a serious response, but regular counter-attacks are too much effort, too, and silence isn’t always appropriate.  The meme persona is an option for twisting and distorting these attacks into something that their authors did not intend and against which they do not have pre-existing defenses.  (Some people put warding symbols on their blogs for this instead.)  

As for the writing style, it is what it is, you either read it or you don’t.

If you only want the actual serious stuff, I recommend the #flagpost and #policy tags.

anons asks politics
collapsedsquid
mitigatedchaos

Hell, why don’t we re-enact Sherman’s march and raze the US south, the southern US is full of shitty people with shitty politics.  Maybe burn down all Mormon churches and compounds, they got both nasty shit going on and nasty politics.

I get you wanna piss your fuckin pants because it’s those dirty furriners doing those dirty furriner crimes, but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.

Things being bad is not a reason to make them worse.  (This part of the problem with arguments about alcohol/drugs, too.)

We have no obligation to import these people.  We do not have an obligation to import people that will make the country worse.  We don’t have an obligation to tolerate criminal acts favored by their cultures, or tear our national social cohesion to shreds to tolerate those acts.

So some fringe groups of Mormons are still polygamists and practice shady things with young brides and that sort of thing.  Oh look, Westerners doing a bad thing.  Better import enough people that have similar practices so that it becomes normalized and gains political power!  That’ll sure improve things!  Yay justice!

but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.

How much FGM was happening in the US before it was imported?  It won’t stop now if immigration is shut off only because we won’t literally kick all those who practice it out of the country.

Kicking out only individuals who are actually convicted of it is the individualist approach.  And it makes sense.  The preconditions for citizenship included not bringing foreign criminal/terrorist activity to this country.  Those preconditions were violated.

In light of that, how does removing citizenship not make sense?

And I don’t really think the problem we have is “We don’t execute criminals grotesquely enough.“  I think there’s a reason why we don’t do that sort of thing anymore.  If you wanted to heighten investigation, that could make sense, but public executions don’t really help anyone.

It apparently cost $500,000 to prosecute three guys, and the number of crimes committed is far worse.

However, “diversity” ideology covered up that the crimes were even happening in the first place.  Admitting that some cultures practice this bullsht more than others was “racist”.  I mean it’s just economics, right?  Cultural differences beyond food aren’t real, right?

What is your plan to force assimilation on this issue?

Maybe we don’t have to publicly execute them.  Maybe we can just ordinarily execute them and make sure it gets in the news where their buddies we read it.  

Maybe I don’t even want to go that far.  Maybe I just want to throw the Overton Window far enough to the right that Cultural Antirealism will die and Left/Libs will at least start admitting that there is a problem and we can get a gentler solution that actually works.

uncharitable politics
bambamramfan
Jon Stewart, John Oliver…mostly enact the pure arrogance of the liberal intellectual elite: “Parodying Trump is at best a distraction from his real politics; at worst it converts the whole of politics into a gag. The process has nothing to do with the performers or the writers or their choices. Trump built his candidacy on performing as a comic heel—that has been his pop culture persona for decades. It is simply not possible to parody effectively a man who is a conscious self-parody, and who has become president of the United States on the basis of that performance.”
Zizek citing Stephen Marche
(via slavoj–zizek)
Source: slavoj--zizek politics trump
See this in the app Show more
Top Photos