throughthewildblue:

You cannot buy electronics with food stamps. You cannot buy cigarettes with food stamps. You cannot buy pet food with food stamps. You cannot withdraw money with an EBT card (food stamps).

Do you know what else you can’t buy with food stamps? Shampoo, soap, laundry detergent, toilet paper, paper towels, tissues, tinfoil, plastic sandwich bags, toothpaste, cleaning products, tampons, pads, over the counter medications (such as Tylenol, Ibuprofen, etc.), and anything else you can think of that you cannot physically ingest for nutritional purposes.

Do you know what you can buy with food stamps? Food.

Do you know what it’s like to scrounge for change to buy non-edible necessities, use a credit card and EBT card (food stamps) during the same transaction, and then have the person in line behind you judge you for buying the ingredients to make a birthday cake?

People who disseminate false information about food stamps have never had to use food stamps.

(via witchfoot)

gradientlair:

I recently shared a few tweets about the the patriarchal, misogynistic, male privilege, entitled, and utterly repulsive notion (usually proffered by cishet/hetero men) of the “friend zone” that refuses to die. Refuses! I’ve written about this in the past and about how it connects to Nice Guys™ (not *any* men with many personality facets and moods that include niceness, but a very specific type here) in Nice Guys™ and Race, "Divide and Conquer," Passive Aggression and Bad Dating Tactics, Boring and Entitled ≠ Nice and Nice Guys™ and Feminism. There I discussed the specifics about the entitlement and passive aggressive misogyny involved in the myth of this “friend zone” and related issues. Thus, here I’ll mention something else.

I am really disturbed by how misconstrued and degraded the notion of friendship is. Not all romantic relationships involve sex; thus, the absence of sex does not make a relationship automatically a friendship in the traditionally platonic sense, period. Sexual attraction is not the only type of attraction that exists. Friendship does not exist between two people solely because they know each other and one of the people who has sexual desire/intentions doesn’t make that known and expects the other person to be aware of it, initiate something and desire them sexually. Pursuing someone solely for sex or for a sexual romantic relationship entitles the pursuant to absolutely nothing. No one else is required to satiate someone else’s desires unless they want to and both consent. 

Women do not owe men anything solely because those men perceive themselves as “nice.” I am specific now because it is predominately cishet/hetero men suggesting that a “friend zone” exists in regards to not being able to have sex with/date women at their will. The notion that performing niceness (because actually being thoughtful is not a performance in hopes of a reward) for a sexual reward without conveying sexual interest and not making what is desired clear and known is sheerly inadequacy at best, manipulation at worst. This seems to be especially awful for Black women (which I mentioned in my essay Nice Guys™ and Race) since how Black women are devalued interracially and intraracially impacts the male gaze, especially the hetero Black male gaze. So the idea that Black women have no empowerment or entitlement to choose or to reject who we don’t desire (and not all Black women or any women are automatically heterosexual and desire men just because those men are “nice” in their own opinions) directly connects to other dehumanizing stereotypes that are used justify violence against us. 

And sure, I know that some women also ascribe to this myth of the “friend zone” where they perceive friendship as the absence of sex. Of course. Patriarchy doesn’t only impact how men perceive relationships; women and other people who aren’t men are impacted too. But because of how patriarchy assigns the most power to cishet men, the related perception of entitlement to women’s bodies is much higher for them than anyone else. Certainly this is affected by other intersectional factors such as race; strugglingtobeheard pointed out in the differences between “friend zone” rhetoric of White and Black men in regards to structural power.

Several things need to occur beyond obvious deconstruction of patriarchy and awareness of male privilege. One is evaluation of what an actual friendship is and looks like is needed. The rejection of “entitlement without communication” is needed. If these men think that “friendship” is a parking place until they can be sexual, then not only do they devalue friendship, they devalue sexual romantic relationships as well. They, themselves, need to figure out what these relationships look like for them. Because what some men suggest these relationships should be is truly pitiful. Seriously.

quipquipquip:

mindgoggling:

misandryad:

coming onto my blog telling me white people refined spices like mint gum is too spicy for you people shut the fuck up

Oh my god I’ve actually been waiting for you to bring this up!

Americans (or at least the white ones) systematically destroyed the idea of cooking needing to taste good around the turn of the century. White, middle class women were taught that if you had any kind of spices or flavors or anything that tasted good, you’d tear your clothes off and start doing foreign things and red meat would make your husband jerk off till his eyes popped right out of his head.

"American cuisine, which had never been admired by the rest of the world for anything but the abundance of its ingredients, took another beating from the scientific school of cookery, which emphasized nutrition to the almost total exclusion of anything else. ‘Cooking has a nobler purpose than the gratification of appetite and sense of taste,’ said a speaker at the World’s Congress of Women at the Chicago World’s Fair. The scientific housewives worshiped the god of protein and the energy-building calorie. (The turn-of-the-century obsession with calories was not about cutting them down, but about finding foods that could deliver the maximum caloric cargo per bite.) Dinners were supposed to be eye-catching, and experts favored color-coordinated meals with hand carved vegetables and solids floating in liquids. The early-twentieth-century hostesses particularly liked food that resembled something else. Fish could be pureed and put into a mold to look like anything from a moon to George Washington’s profile. A chicken salad could be shaped like a lamb chop, a pear pierced with almond slivers to impersonate a porcupine. Virtually any dish could be improved by covering it with white sauce- a mixture of flour, milk and butter that muffled taste while improving the ‘daintiness’ of the plate."

Collins, Gail. “Turn of the Century.” America’s Women: Four Hundred Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates and Heroines. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. 295-96. Print

This is why basically every ~American~ dish is a bastardized immigrant food.

White people and food: a tragicomedy. This reminded me of the fact that Kellogg invented corn flakes because he thought that starting your day off with bland food would make you less likely to masturbate. Because spices make you want to touch yourself.

(via misandryad)

i dug through the entire rack of “sour” (? in what way are these sour) gummy bears for the best assortment of colors