This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.
This is a theological point that doesn’t come up often enough.
wait a freaking second
who is jensen ackles
i thought jensen ackles was that fish from spongebob
i thought…this entire time… you guys have been talking about this fish…..
i dont even know why i just heard the name jensen ackles and assumed that was this guys name
This is the most serious post on this entire website
Like I always say, the real horror in life isn’t monsters, demons or ghosts but us, humans and what we are capable of
This is legit terrifying.
Read it and weep, snowflakes.
Oh my god, this is perfect.
For the dearies who didn’t want to, or didn’t have time to research, here’s a brief summary:
From a Q&A with one of the researchers, we learnt that activists (like feminists) “were perceived as militant, aggressive, forceful, argumentative and abrasive.”
By aggressively promoting change and advocating unconventional practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.
In one study, 17 male and 45 female undergraduate students were randomly assigned to read a profile about a student who was a “typical” feminist (described as conforming to the stereotypes), an “atypical” feminist (described as not conforming to the stereotypes) or someone whose commitment to feminism was not described. All participants then rated the extent to which the stereotypical traits belonged to character they read about, as well as if they were interested in being associated with the character.
The most common traits for “typical feminists” included “man-hating”, “eccentric”, “militant” and “unhygienic”.
—-Aversion to Association—-
Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes. It further found participants were less interested in befriending activists who participated in stereotypical behavior (such as staging protest rallies), but could easily envision hanging out with those who use “nonabrasive and mainstream methods” such as raising money or organizing social events.
“We found that participants were less motivated to adopt pro-gender equality behaviours when the article was ostensibly delivered by the ‘typical’ feminist rather than by one of the other message sources,” says Bashir.
The results of three additional studies suggested this aversion to perceived stereotypical behavior impacts people’s behavior. They don’t want other people to view them in the same negative view and consequently be attributed with commonly perceived negative stereotypes.
Due to these negative stereotypes, people are reluctant to adopt the behaviours that these movements (like feminism) promote.
“Furthermore, this tendency to associate activists with negative stereotypes and perceive them as people with whom it would be unpleasant to affiliate reduces individuals’ motivation to adopt the pro-change behaviors that activists advocate.”
In contrast, the studies also showed that people are more receptive of the message when it comes from an individual who does not conform to these negative stereotypes.
What does this mean? Are all activists this way?
“It’s important to keep in mind that this research is focused on how activists are perceived by others, rather than how they actually are,” Bashir says. “The militant and eccentric characteristics do not necessarily describe the actual personality traits possessed by activists.”
In conclusion, negative stereotypes are limiting the influence of what are supposed to be progressive and benign social movements.
So how do we deal with the problem of negative stereotypes?
The researchers suggest that the general public “may be more receptive to advocates who defy stereotypes by coming across as pleasant and approachable.”
But there is some value to activists in considering that people do perceive them negatively and maybe they do need to tweak their strategy a bit to take into consideration the way they’re coming across to people.
This is a feminist’s response to the research, in which she actively encourages the reader to completely disregard the stereotypes, ignoring the harm the stereotypes are inflicting to their own cause, and the advice given by the researchers (to be more considerate). Feminists should simply ‘fight back’ instead (thereby inadvertently reinforcing those negative stereotypes). Her reasoning being that it’s the privileged people who are censoring activists and smearing the name of feminism.
The solution to that, Mr. Jacobs, isn’t to turn around and waggle fingers at the feminists for being insufficiently smiley (and in doing so to reinforce the false assumption that feminists are… what was the word? “Overwhelmingly negative”?). The solution is to instead push back against the people trying to use their privilege to control the conversation; to push back against the many, many people who use their political, media, and social power to smear the name of feminism in order to intimidate people from claiming that term for themselves.
Not only is she promoting actions that would consequently reinforce the stereotypes she’s offended about, but she is blatantly refusing to acknowledge the militant feminists that exist in great numbers in her movement, and are considerably the most vocal group.
So I implore you, dear keyboard warrior feminists, to realize that saying this
and doing this
is not helping your cause at all.
All you’re doing is proving the negative stereotypes to be true.
Don’t blame The Patriarchy™ if ever your movement ends up in flames incited by your own reckless actions.
And special thanks to anti-feminism-pro-equality, from whom I stole a couple of screenshots. (Sorry! <3)
This deadass the funniest tweet ever.
THIS IS WORSE THAN THE MUG GIRL
For the past two days, this little dinosaur has been hitchhiking on my side mirror.
And every time I go back to my car, he’s just chilling on top of the mirror, ready to go.
The dude’s hella confused though. He sees himself in the mirror and tries to attract himself to himself
And sometimes it looks like he fell off …
ADVENTURES OF CAR DINOSAUR
cherish him forever