AnonymousAssuming I’m alive, and even then, everything that follows still has an “I hope for since it can’t be foreseen” caveat, I’ll be living with a friend, married if she wants to be, failing as a writer, excelling as a reader, still interested in math, philosophy, and literature, maybe a student yet, and likely working at a hospital.
Super REblog
I’m quite proud to support equal rights… though I don’t understand why we need to criticize the marriages of others in order to do so. I’ve been seeing a lot of this lately. Should only same-sex couples who are not going to get divorced be allowed to marry? Or same-sex couples who only have sex with one another? No, of course not. Everyone should have the right to marry… and divorce… and marry again… and sleep with whomever* they’d like before, during, and after each of those stages.
*with some qualifiers
AnonymousI really do wonder about who the ‘everyone’ referred to here entails. I guess I’m further endorsing it by publishing… but I wanted to say something. Sorry all.
“No. The intersexed are still technically one of two genders (“gender” as in “synonym for ‘sex,’” because don’t make me draw that stupid, petty distinction); just mutated forms of them. There isn’t a whole new species formed every time some kid’s born with an extra arm; why would a dude who has an XY chromosome with a few extra Ys be anything other than male?
And even if one is to deign to acknowledge any supposed difference between “gender” and “sex,” “gender” as it’s defined by queer studies majors and indignant trannies doesn’t have anything to do with physical attraction. That is not how biology fucking works. I hope you all burn in hell.”
I’m pretty sure ‘the intersexed’, as they are referred to here, are still human. Therefore, a more accurate comparison would be, to say that ‘the intersexed’ are male despite extra Y chromosomes would be to say a person with three functioning legs was bipedal. The rest isn’t worth responding to.
Yea, that’s right you’re not “hip” because you care more about the person rather than gender. At the end of the day two people cannot coexist solely on sex. You all are just too ignorant and stupid to realize it. But congratulations for creating yet…
You’re welcome. You seem to be all over my feed tonight, though I’ve no idea how I came to be following you in the first place. Where do I even imply that you don’t have the ‘freedom’ to pass judgment again? Again, look down upon everyone, deny your priviledge, misinterpret the philosophy you yourself ascribe to whilst explaining to others… all you want. You’re passing judgment on me, and I’m passing judgment on you. I might even call this an exchange of ideas, for your sake. You seem more pretentious than me! Which is hella pretentious, brah.
Yea, that’s right you’re not “hip” because you care more about the person rather than gender. At the end of the day two people cannot coexist solely on sex. You all are just too ignorant and stupid to realize it. But congratulations for creating yet another label for yourself, beyond hipster of course.
Thanks for informing me that I am no longer ‘hip’. I really enjoyed those 20 or so minutes from when I first found out I was ‘hip’ (via your blog, of course) until now, when I found out I am not ‘hip’. Why can’t two people coexist solely on sex again? Because you said so? Not that I have any idea who you are trying to say attempts to coexist solely on sex. I love your attempts at insulting everyone. You’re really good at it. Ya ever think about joining one of those political parties that deny priviledge so that they can look down upon everyone while preaching freedom? Oh wait, you have? What are the odds…
What the fuck is a “pansexual”?
What could you possibly be attracted to that doesn’t fall under the category of straight, gay, or bisexual?
I really don’t get it.
Can someone explain?
It was created by a bunch of people who wanted to be hip. I’ve always thought of it as…
There are hermaphrodites, and not all of them have surgery as infants. There are people who do not identify as either male or female, despite their sexual organs. But I’m glad you think I’m ‘hip’ for ignoring gender, since it is not an important construct in my life. We have reproductive options that make sex for that purpose obsolete. And going forward, they will only become more prevalent. Gender roles, and social stratification in general, are to the detriment of all.
Yes, I’d agree with that being the message. I don’t wish for poor, “white trash” people not to be able to adopt though. As what makes them unfit parents? I do believe the artist is trying to say that less qualified parents are able to adopt, when more qualified parents have trouble with the process. I wish there would be less of a hassle for a gay couple, or single, to adopt. Certainly. 100%. Adoption as a whole needs to be revisited.
I realize that “white trash” may be an unfit term. I was only using it to refer to the lifestyle that is portrayed by the lower image. They seem to live in an unkempt house. The father in the back holding the girl makes me think or rape (I can sadly think of no other reason he would be holding a girl). The beer cans in the forefront make me think of alcoholism. I think the artist is not getting at individual stereotypes at all. I think he/she is implying that a couple not suited for children for whatever reason would get them over a couple who is perfectly suited for them, socioeconomically speaking, simply because they are gay. My motif prognosis: homosexuality, plain and simple. Very good comic overall. We should bring this one and the 1984 one up in class tomorrow.
I was actually unable to determine the sex of the child he was holding, but rape isn’t an unfair conclusion. I believe the beer, and the cigarette, etc. are supposed to lead you to believe as much. But a lot of these other issues presented, are more prevalent in lower economic statuses. I’m probably expecting too much of a simple comic with a clear goal, to tackle all of this. However,
“I think he/she is implying that a couple not suited for children for whatever reason would get them over a couple who is perfectly suited for them, socioeconomically speaking, simply because they are gay.
is pretty much perfect. The rest is just more added evaluation.
Agreed on bringing both up…
This image seriously does say to me “fat, poor people should not be allowed children; thin rich white gay men should be allowed kids because obviously thin rich people are better parents than fat poor people.” It does not say to me, “Queer couples should be allowed to adopt”, because fat, poor queer people seem not to exist in the artist’s world and in the world of this cartoon I’m sure fat, poor queer people would also be terrible parents. I don’t care if this makes me “oversensitive”, if that’s not the message you meant to convey with your cartoon maybe you should have tried harder.
commentary.
yes that DOES make you oversensative. There are a thousand ways to take any image. I’d be willing to bet money that the artist wanted to convey that a good parent is a good parent, queer or straight. Im gunna go ahead and guess that you’re fat and insecure because any normal person critiquing the comic would see the fighting children, smoking, religion, alcohol, dirtyness, and physical abuse in the background. The fatness is a minor detail that you’re just bitching about for not reason.
i’m sorry, but you’re a jackass.
How rich. Insulting someone for their opinion on this political cartoon. Of course, it’s an opinion you do not agree with.
Cause this cartoon clearly says fat people can’t be good parents. *eyeroll*
The girl who wrote that probably is fat and insecure and that’s why she took it like that. People need to stop being so goddamn overly sensitive.
It was a choice of the artist to depict each couple the way they are depicted here. The bottom panels depicts too fat people. So I do not think it is much of a stretch to say that it is saying fat people aren’t good parents. And it is clearly saying that poor people do not make good parents. That is pretty obvious to me. Thus, I absolutely support one of the messages this image conveys, though I do not support any of the others. I think it could have been depicted in another way, for a better result.
I think the overweight image of the lower parents only aids to the visage of their poor standards of parenthood. I don’t believe that the artist is DIRECTLY saying anything about obese people, merely that a statistically qualified couple did not receive children simply because they were gay, while the poor, “white trash” looking people did only because they were heterosexual. That is, at least, the message I get here.
Yes, I’d agree with that being the message. I don’t wish for poor, “white trash” people not to be able to adopt though. As what makes them unfit parents? I do believe the artist is trying to say that less qualified parents are able to adopt, when more qualified parents have trouble with the process. I wish there would be less of a hassle for a gay couple, or single, to adopt. Certainly. 100%. Adoption as a whole needs to be revisited.
This image seriously does say to me “fat, poor people should not be allowed children; thin rich white gay men should be allowed kids because obviously thin rich people are better parents than fat poor people.” It does not say to me, “Queer couples should be allowed to adopt”, because fat, poor queer people seem not to exist in the artist’s world and in the world of this cartoon I’m sure fat, poor queer people would also be terrible parents. I don’t care if this makes me “oversensitive”, if that’s not the message you meant to convey with your cartoon maybe you should have tried harder.
commentary.
yes that DOES make you oversensative. There are a thousand ways to take any image. I’d be willing to bet money that the artist wanted to convey that a good parent is a good parent, queer or straight. Im gunna go ahead and guess that you’re fat and insecure because any normal person critiquing the comic would see the fighting children, smoking, religion, alcohol, dirtyness, and physical abuse in the background. The fatness is a minor detail that you’re just bitching about for not reason.
i’m sorry, but you’re a jackass.
How rich. Insulting someone for their opinion on this political cartoon. Of course, it’s an opinion you do not agree with.
Cause this cartoon clearly says fat people can’t be good parents. *eyeroll*
The girl who wrote that probably is fat and insecure and that’s why she took it like that. People need to stop being so goddamn overly sensitive.
It was a choice of the artist to depict each couple the way they are depicted here. The bottom panels depicts too fat people. So I do not think it is much of a stretch to say that it is saying fat people aren’t good parents. And it is clearly saying that poor people do not make good parents. That is pretty obvious to me. Thus, I absolutely support one of the messages this image conveys, though I do not support any of the others. I think it could have been depicted in another way, for a better result.
Built an empire quick and it might not last
But I bet I go down in history as the one that smashed
I’m America! You know you know God Bless America
Happy Birthday Angela Davis - “We have to talk about liberating minds as well as liberating society.”
