Marjane Satrapi, cartoonist and film director, best known for Persepolis
22 November 1969 - 4 June 2026
trying on a metaphor
Show & Tell
AnasAbdin
YOU ARE THE REASON
One Nice Bug Per Day

pixel skylines
Jules of Nature

PR's Tumblrdome
Game of Thrones Daily

★
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Discoholic 🪩
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Keni
Three Goblin Art
Monterey Bay Aquarium
taylor price
sheepfilms

seen from Türkiye

seen from Taiwan

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from South Africa
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from South Africa

seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
@miamitu
Marjane Satrapi, cartoonist and film director, best known for Persepolis
22 November 1969 - 4 June 2026

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
It's nuts how common it is to not allow children to be angry, even (especially) in households where adults are angry all the time. As a child I knew my own anger was unacceptable--not just expressing it outwardly but feeling it at all. So now as an adult my immediate reaction to my own anger is often to feel guilt instead of like. Noticing when someone is being rude or unfair or my boundaries are being violated or whatever. fucked up.
to this day "who is allowed to be angry" has been an incredible benchmark for teasing out who, in abusive situations with mutual accusations and DARVO happening, is being abusive and who is being abused. one of my favorite resources about this, the Creative Interventions Toolkit, phrases the question "who sets the weather?" in the relationship and I think about it so so often when I think about my own childhood. I was parentified in a way that set me up for future abusive relationships, because I had to soothe my parents' anger while not being allowed to feel angry myself. I am extremely grateful to everyone outside myself - friends, therapists, partners - who's gotten angry on my behalf about how I'm treated or let me know something I'd been excusing or blaming myself for was actually Not Okay. I guess the good news here is that it's possible to learn how to access anger again in a healthy way, it just takes support, like doing physical therapy for a muscle that didn't develop quite right.
I relate so strongly to this.
This is not to say that feeling anger is abusive; it's human to feel anger. But if you've ever felt like your anger was "unjustified" or were afraid to express it outwardly because you expected it to be dismissed ... ask yourself how you would react if the roles were reversed. I find that a lot of folks who were The Grown Up in a relationship with their parents hold themselves to much different standards than they hold other people.
I've seen plenty of situations that involve two or more people hurting each other and not admitting any fault because they want to protect their own egos. But. Notice when you think you're not entitled to be upset about something. When someone tells you you shouldn't be upset. There's a difference between taking your anger out on other people and just. Being allowed to feel angry.
i think one of the worst things the left wing internet ever did was push the idea that oppression is basically a virtue, and being oppressed is a sign of your morality. it has made it like…impossible for some of you to hold the idea that most people are privileged in some ways and oppressed in others. AND a lot of you seem to have it in your mind that terrible people cannot be oppressed, and that oppressed people cannot do terrible things, which is a dangerous rhetoric to hold imo.
Not only is it important so you don't get taken advantage of by terrible people wielding their oppressions as weapons, but also your convictions against oppression should not be contingent on the morality of the people suffering. Shitty people don't deserve to be oppressed either. Human rights are one of those things you only really understand and believe in if you see them as universal, not conditional.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
they killed him for this
I’d die on the hill that “stranger danger” is a deeply unhelpful mentality to have. “Ooooh everyone is out to get me they’re all gonna perpetrate harm that’s actually more likely to come from someone I already know. I better never talk to anyone in my community who I don’t already know, just to be safe. I’m sure there are no other biases interwoven with this mentality” like oh my god human traffickers do not just randomly spawn in every parking lot. You don’t have to go solo hitchhiking across the country but you also don’t have to live in fear that every guy on the street is the knife man who’s gonna get you. Like have situational awareness, yeah. But most of the time the guy on the street is not knife man he’s actually just a guy on the street and he’s probably pretty chill, and you’re driving yourself crazy by living in a constant state of unnecessary fear.
Like always safety comes first, especially if you’re in a marginalized group more likely to be targeted by random people around you. But that’s different from stranger danger. I might even say that stranger danger is something that contributes to marginalized groups getting targeted by random people. Which strangers do you find distrust worthy? Why? Does vague distrust justify harmful actions in the name of self defense? Stranger danger draws everyone away from more important issues of safety (underlying bigotries, systemic injustices, abuse in the home, etc) and towards an amorphous boogeyman that has no solution, because it’s not the real cause or culprit.
His smile is so radiant
Maybe one year Demi can be the one jello wrestling with another women
these miis are driving me nuts

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I don't think cis men commit 90% of violent crimes because they are naturally more violent than cis women. I think cis men commit 90% of violent crimes because they are afforded more opportunity and leeway by society to do so.
I think there's an incredible correlation between insulating cis boys from the consequences of their actions and the prevalence of violent crime.
I think we teach cis boys from a young age that violence will be tolerated from them as long as they perform masculinity to society's standards.
That second part is the salient factor here. Because we also teach them that violence will not be tolerated from them if they defy society's standards of masculinity, even if it's self defense. If they're picked on for defying those standards, it's the violence against them that's validated.
I think cis boys who are performing masculinity to society's standards get in no real trouble for snapping their classmates' bra straps or pulling their hair or whatever else gets written off as "he likes you" & it sets them up for a life of violence.
It doesn't guarantee it. But it raises the probability that they will continue to express their desires via violence when they're adults.
A study published about male vs female brains being the same supports this idea. I was thinking about this, if the brains are the same, then it must be cultural and societal. I also recall a different video which also supported this concept. It stated cultures where the men and women have equal power distribution have no major discrepancies in violence from one gender to the other.
I am constantly frustrated by the conversations around cis men always boiling down to 'men can't be trusted, because they're more prone to commit violence.' Two things can be true there: one is that yes, statistically, the majority doers of physical violence ARE men, because we're raised our entire lives to believe men are instantly capable of violence and women really aren't, they're just serial victims.
The other is that when you insinuate that this is a facet of their biological nature as a discrete type of human being, you are contributing to the problem: our culture teaches men that to express violent urges is a part of their natural male expression, and thus men who want to express violence feel absolved of responsibility for their violence, because they can't help it, because they're men. If you play the role right and do the violence the right way, to the right people, at the right times, you'll be REWARDED. What's the point of fighting something that you're rewarded for if you're also being told that it's a permanent fixture of your personhood that you can never escape? Society makes it easier to be a violent man than a compassionate one.
It is one thing to be wary around strange men as a survival practice. All feminized people learn it at some point. Even as a masc, even as cocky as I tend to be with the idea that I can take care of myself and that the average cis straight man doesn't want anything from my fat hairy ass, I am wary around strange men, I pay attention for warning signs and if I start seeing them I start keeping that guy in my line of sight and a hand on the knife in my pocket. But you have to recognize that if these guys are dangerous, that is because there is a societal pattern of teaching men "you are dangerous, it's inevitable, it's in your DNA, it's in your hormones, you are sexually violent by nature" that enables men to function in this way in their heads - it is not actually an intrinsic trait of their being.
When you are hurting people, and it is cathartic for you, it's very comforting to believe that it was inevitable. You're not doing anything WRONG if it's just in your nature. You're just doing what's natural, and who can judge you for that? Why should you be responsible for policing your own very nature?
And if you truly believe that violence is intrinsic to something in the male biology... why the fuck would you even bother being a feminist? You believe that an entire half of the population instinctively wants to exploit you by nature, and can never be rehabilitated away from that, and also they are more powerful than you and can hurt you more easily than you can hurt them. If that's true feminism is cooked and can never succeed. You're just wasting your time flailing and struggling until the monster inevitably eats you. You can never fundamentally change this for yourself or for other women. That's a fucked up way to see the world.
For feminism to even HAVE an end goal of true liberation, you need to be able to believe that men can be made into allies. Otherwise you might as well pack it in and start picking out your handmaiden bonnets.
But if you don't want to do that, then you need to start thinking of toxic masculinity as a training process that little boys are put through that we can STOP putting them through if we stop telling them "yeah you're just gonna be violent and want to rape girls sometimes, that's just nature, boys will be boys wink wink"
And on a final note: there is really something interesting that has happened within the queer and trans community where a lot of people believe that transgender men are dangerous until proven safe just the exact same way cis men are, by virtue of identifying as men. Which seems like a contradiction to me. Is the toxic masculinity stored in the brain, the balls, the testosterone, or the gendered socialization? Because I don't have a 'biologically male brain' I just have a normal brain, I don't have balls, I don't have male levels of testosterone, and I wasn't socialized as a male. But there are people on here - including other trans guys - who will insist that the moment you start identifying as male you become toxically masculine by nature until you prove yourself through hard work to be safe.
Well, are you sure? Because again, I was not socialized as a man. I was socialized as a woman. If I absorbed messages about what a man is Supposed to be and you think that that messaging is what makes me potentially dangerous, because even though they weren't intended as instruction for me, I was internalizing them -- would that not also be true of every other girl I grew up with who DIDN'T turn out to be trans male? Is male violence a potential energy that exists inside the body of every human being, that is released upon the trigger of accepting a male identity?
I honestly have trouble with the concept of "socialized male" vs "socialized female" because it seems to me like we're all just socialized, we're all taught to internalize a set of expectation for each sex, not just the one we were assigned. Boys learn what to expect of other boys and of girls - girls learn what to expect of other girls and of boys. We are all downloading the same complete set of gendered expectations, regardless of which ones are intended for us. We are all expected to put in the work to reinforce the other gender's roles; women are expected to reject and belittle 'weak' men who fail to perform masculinity just as men are expected to reject and belittle 'masculine' women who fail to perform femininity.
both genders do their part to police the other. Women are also responsible for enabling and training men toward violence, because they are taught to expect that from a successful man. Again "boys will be boys," to come full circle to my original point: you are literally contributing to this training process every time you insist that violence is an inherent part of the male identity.
I am expected to hold myself responsible for cis male trends of violence, as a feminized person who was subjected to it and knows firsthand exactly what it's like to be victimized by it. Because the same people who think that masculine violence is a biological trait caused by the evil hormone Testosterone, also believe that trans men are a risk for masculine violence with or without testosterone, because to consciously accept the male identity is to tacitly accept the baggage associated with it into your identity.
But also men are just naturally evil because of their brain chemistry and nothing we can do as a society will ever rehabilitate them. But also you become naturally evil the second you accept the societal label of man even without the chemistry.
It's like a recursive loop.
Being hairy is so awesome #mammal
would be fun if language acquisition echoed language evolution a la recapitulation theory. kids going through an indo european phase.
https://xkcd.com/2567/
fuuuuuck there really is an xkcd for everything
Quick put an animal book in front of him and ask him what this guy is
there's an xkcd for that also
me: do you think this train touches the overhead wires normally or do you think she gets freaky with it
train conductor who i've been distracting from my lack of ticket for 35 minutes now: y'know i think she gets freaky with it

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Swarovski can continue to fuck off.
In 2021, Swarovski (the company that makes the very sparkly crystals you see in certain jewelry, on figure-skaters' twinkliest outfits, on red carpet dresses), decided they didn't want the grubby fingers of small-time jewelers, clothing designers and costumers and crafters on their shiny beads and rhinestones anymore. They decided to limit their sales to "luxury" and couture creators, not girls who sell stuff on Etsy. The tenor of their press release on the subject was snide and insulting. Resellers (like your favorite bead shop) would no longer be allowed to carry their product; the average Jane on the street would not be able to purchase them. You could only get them if you had an authorized business agreement that bound you to very strict brand behavior. And those of us who still had good stock of the crystals would no longer be "permitted" to use the brand's name in our listings for sale.
Every bead shop and craft supply place and many, many small clothing makers--wedding shops, prom and dancing dress suppliers, the sort of salt of the Earth mom and pop time machines of shops that are the backbone of the field--scrambled to find something that could replace them. The last of the stock dwindled quickly, all of us grabbing what we could get while there was any chance of it, and then it was gone and we no longer had any access.
I was Big Pissed about it at the time. It was just so goddamn stuck-up, when wholesalers and indie jewelers had made them so much money, when some people I knew--when *I!*--had been brand-loyal for decades. But with no recourse, everyone pivoted fairly quickly, most of us to Preciosa Crystals. Those are Czech, quite sparkly, and considerably less expensive than Swarovski. The faceting method they use is different, but not worse; any differences are hardly noticeable when you're seeing them as a hundred pinpoints of light.
Well, out of nowhere, Swarovski just dropped this: https://www.harmanbeads.com/swarovski-brand-policy-update
"Effective June 1, 2026, Swarovski updated the distribution and brand usage policies introduced in 2021. Businesses may now purchase Swarovski Crystals without signing a Brand Control Agreement, and Authorized Distribution Partners may once again sell Swarovski Crystals to resellers, including bead stores and online retailers. Businesses may also use the Swarovski brand name when following Swarovski’s Proper Use Guidelines. Designers, manufacturers, artists, brands, retailers, and resellers are now eligible to purchase Swarovski Crystals through authorized distribution channels."
They want us back. A lot of the companies who could have kept a brand relationship with them also have swapped to Preciosa, over the last half-decade, in solidarity with indie creators and out of a sour awareness that it could be them, next. And it doesn't hurt that Preciosa was able to expand their line quite a bit now that everyone who wanted sparkle had no choice but to go to them.
And I'm not seeing nearly anyone who intends to return. The feeling is, "Y'all told us to fuck off! Off we fucked! And now, that's what you can do, too!" I'm seeing a lot of "How many of us did you stab in the back?" comments from the people whose money they're hoping to attract.
And personally I'm sitting over here all rubby hands, mean snickering, because they really thought they were going to be able to outclimb the people who actually provided all their profits, and now here they are, hat in hand.
Top 10 branches of science ranked by how bad it would suck to be killed by them (from best to worst)
Physics - probably the nicest just on the grounds of how fast that's gonna be. Like if you're a goner before any of the other sciences can get to you, you probably don't even have time to feel anything.
Biology - the most standard default way of dying. Most of the time it sucks but not badly enough to warrant you its own wikipedia page.
Geology - one of the oldest OG classics. Rock hits Og. Og is gone.
Psychology - slow tigers are chasing you.
Zoology - fast tigers are chasing you.
Sociology - idk me and the rest of the angry mob agree that you had it coming.
Chemistry - this is a hard one to place because there's a lot of variation. But anyhow you're getting undone on a cellular level.
Mathematics - how the fuck did you even do that.
Cosmology - why the fuck did you even do that?
Theology - what the fuck did you even do?
This is like ten episodes of Star Trek in a row.