“Intuitive eating — or whatever you want to call the radical notion of eating what you want, when you’re hungry, and stopping when you’re full — demands that we trust our bodies. Most women learn early and often that their bodies are never to be trusted, that their bodies need strict regulation, especially when it comes to desire, be it the desire for food or for sex. As a result, learning to trust one’s body is difficult enough; when you add in a past that includes trauma and abuse, it becomes harder still. But your body IS trustworthy. I promise you that. Your body is not your enemy.”
— In which Lesley Kinzel speaks truth about disordered eating, backsliding, and trusting yourself. (via diverswife)
8:34 pm • 8 Septiembre 2014 • 14 191 notas
I feel like a creep liking a mutual’s selfie as soon as they post it because I happen to see it, but why prolong letting them know I saw and appreciate the pic of themselves, you know?
5:40 pm • 8 Septiembre 2014 • 11 notas
Gentrifiers focus on aesthetics, not people. Because people, to them, are aesthetics.
Proponents of gentrification will vouch for its benevolence by noting it “cleaned up the neighbourhood”. This is often code for a literal white-washing. The problems that existed in the neighbourhood - poverty, lack of opportunity, struggling populations denied city services - did not go away. They were simply priced out to a new location.
That new location is often an impoverished suburb, which lacks the glamour to make it the object of future renewal efforts. There is no history to attract preservationists because there is nothing in poor suburbs viewed as worth preserving, including the futures of the people forced to live in them. This is blight without beauty, ruin without romance: payday loan stores, dollar stores, unassuming homes and unpaid bills. In the suburbs, poverty looks banal and is overlooked.
In cities, gentrifiers have the political clout - and accompanying racial privilege - to reallocate resources and repair infrastructure. The neighbourhood is “cleaned up” through the removal of its residents. Gentrifiers can then bask in “urban life” - the storied history, the selective nostalgia, the carefully sprinkled grit - while avoiding responsibility to those they displaced.
— Sarah Kendzior - The peril of hipster economics (x)
(Fuente: mizoguchi, vía suumaq)
5:09 pm • 8 Septiembre 2014 • 8 448 notas
None of dem get my sex
None of dem move my intellect
None of dem work for me
None of dem make me feel anything
10:17 am • 8 Septiembre 2014 • 22 notas
My Bloody Valentine - Sunny Sundae Smile
Straight out of the gate this song blows up with fuzz. Early MBV were the best noise poppers out there. Combining perfect jangle and melodic songwriting with the noise that they would later be associated with.
5:08 pm • 7 Septiembre 2014 • 50 notas
paul-von-hindenburg ha dicho: Who would win in a fistfight, Marx or Lenin?
This is the purpose of historical materialism. This is what everything’s been about. Let’s get to it.
Alright I googled “Vladimir Lenin height and weight” and got directed to this guardian article. Assuming this information is true (I know, it’s The Guardian), Lenin was 5’5”, 165 lbs. I tried googling for Marx’s height/weight but didn’t find any direct results. However, one Yahoo Answers user described him as being of “average height” and referred to this website which posted the following quote:
Marx greatly impressed as all. He was of medium height, broad-shouldered, powerful in build, and vigorous in his movements. His forehead was high and finely shaped, his hair thick and pitch-black, his gaze piercing. Marx was a born leader of the people. His speech was brief, convincing and compelling in its logic. He never said a superfluous word; every sentence contained an idea and every idea was an essential link in the chain of his argument.
So Marx was definitely medium height. We should then be able to reasonably infer his height from looking at whatever that medium height was, right? According to these definitely infallible statistics provided by ChaCha, the average height and weight for a man in the 1840’s was 5’6” and 140-160 lbs. So let’s say Marx was 5’6” and 160. He has an inch on Lenin, but concedes five pounds. What’s more significant here? Is an inch worth more or less than five pounds in weight? I can’t answer this right now, I’m only on the second chapter of Capital.
Here’s a description of Lenin on his wikipedia article:
Concerned with physical fitness, he took regular exercise, enjoyed cycling, swimming, and shooting, also developed a passion for mountain walking in the Swiss peaks.
So Lenin kept in shape.
Unfortunately, “broad-shouldered and powerful in build” is much vaguer than that. I do feel comfortable asserting that Lenin would definitely win a fight against Marx with a gray beard. Young Marx vs Prime Lenin would be a good contest.
But here’s what really matters: Mao was 5’10” and 190 (according to this site which otherwise just slanders him) and worked on his father’s farm in youth, walked a shit ton and loved to swim. He has 4/5 inches and 25/30 pounds on them. Mao would wreck them both and this is why Maoism is the necessary development of Marxism-Leninism.
4:25 pm • 7 Septiembre 2014 • 2 445 notas