Here is a term I’d happily stick a rocket under.
A woman who has previously been in same sex relationships and is now looking for or in a relationship with a man is not a ‘converted’ lesbian, a ‘has-bien’.
They’re possibly bisexual.
Before you get all cute with your terms and judgeyness, perhaps it would be a good thing to check with the person on their orientation. If you don’t, then you end up looking like a biphobic bigot.
This is also completely different to a woman who may be a product of a queerphobic, heteronormative culture and was in relationships with men before having relationships with women. They may be bisexual or they may be lesbian, or anything else on the queer spectrum.
You do not get to label them.
But it’s not like this isn’t anything that’s been said before. It’s just tiring as shit to keep hearing it trotted out by mouth pieces of culture with the ear of the country’s youth, for queer people to constantly be the butt of jokes, and to keep having to reiterate basic anti-phobic sentiment.
Kiss my rainbow tights.
Carrying on from a Twitter conversation, I’ve been trying to coalesce a theory in my head that incorporates obesity panic, body policing, and female nutrition.
Women have been historically underfed, eating the scraps or last in favour of men and children. I think of even two generations ago of women I knew whose nutrition not only suffered from being female/the youngest in a large family, but also from war rationing. I think of women in communities and countries where food denial is still practised as a means of control.
Eating less means less nutritional value means less energy and resources for a body to grow on. This produces small women. Society is used to women being weaker and smaller because of this, and denying women food is an act of violence and control. If all your energy and resources are devoted to simply getting through the day, for survival for you and your children, you don’t have the energy or the size to fight.
It has only been in the last 50-60 years, two to three generations of women, that a global economy/trade, better farming practices, better nutrition factors, feminism, women with their own jobs/money (to buy food), equal rights etc has meant there is more food for everybody, and more food for women. This is not to deny there were larger women or women with jobs before, but women being heard and seen in public, the prevalence of media and imagery etc, we are being seen MORE. And the patriarchy don’t like it.
Evolution does not catch up with our bodies in two generations. You want to talk about genetic modification? How about this for a genetic modification process that began millenia ago - society has controlled women’s size, energy and ability to process/metabolize by controlling their food. Controlling our size this way controls our genetics.
Now we have access to food and control over our own eating, and we’re getting the proportions of food WE SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS HAD ACCESS TO our bodies are struggling to catch up. If you think about it, in some ways THIS IS THE WAY OUR BODIES ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE ON NORMAL NUTRITIONAL VALUES.
But instead food control has created an image of the tiny, weak woman, and it’s no wonder that body policing and eating disorders are rife. We’re still trying to be what was expected of our bodies just 50-60 years ago.
My nanna was tiny. My mother is a little taller. I am larger again by a magnitude, almost a foot taller than my nanna was. I am also fat (I’m not sure what to class myself as, but I’m jiggly and cuddly in places, but not in others :) ). This is what just two generations of proper nutrition produces. Genetics hasn’t caught up with me yet, to channel this new found size into appropriate energy distribution venues. It’s ludicrous to expect me to eat the same values and be the same dress size as my nanna. It would kill me, like I believe it harmed her.
Damn you, welfare moochers!
this already has 100 notes.
I don’t actually get any of the specific references in this, but my goodness it’s funny.
I think it refers to a recent Daily Show piece by Jon Stewart where Tea Partiers were reviling poor people having “luxuries” like fridges and phones.
Maybe too many women got their boobs out at once, is my guess at the next thing to be thrown out there…