Link
The most sexist thing I’ve ever heard: a tale of bullshit and reverse inspiration

So I’m a med student, and some days ago I was reminiscing all the things that eventually led to my decision to become one. Somehow, I thought back to an episode which really hadn’t striken me at the time, but does now.

Once, while in high school, I went to a meeting about Women in History. I actually only went to the last one (because, long story short, no one bothered to deliver circulars to my class and I found out about it too late) which was a sort of wrap up of the whole course.
We were talking about the figure of women in our society, in politics, in entertainment, in all professional fields, when the lecturer (a woman, a seemingly badass-y, competent one) said “I would never be operated by a female surgeon. Too emotional”.

Now. That was a woman who was there to give a lecture about feminism and female empowerment and equality. Are you fucking kidding me?! You can’t say “women are the same as men” and then say “female surgeons are not the same as male surgeons”. That’s bullshit, bullshit you’re delivering to a bunch of teenagers who are hanging on your every word.

Maybe it’s something she said without thinking, something she didn’t even mean, but there might be someone in that audience that said to her/himself “That’s true. If a complication arises during an operation a female surgeon will panic and cry and pull out her hair. A female can’t be as good a surgeon as a male, who will clearly remain calm in every circumstance and heal you” (remember, we’re talking about fourteen year olds -very impressionable).

And what if she really meant it? What if she really was a feminist who believed ‘yeah sure, a woman can be a surgeon, as long as she stays far far far away from me’? Not that there is a ‘proper etiquette’ for being a feminist but that doesn’t sound very feminist, does it?

Men and women are different, I get that. We all do: it’s kind of difficult not to, when the concept is being shoven down our throats on a daily basis.
BUT they are biologically and statistically different, and that’s something which gets very misinterpreted very often. By myself as well, I might add, and it’s not my intention to get all preachy. Biology and sociology are bitches, even more when you can’t really tell where one ends and the other begins (are men and women different because of biology alone? Society alone, obvious anatomical differences aside? The answer to both these questions is -probably- no, but where do we draw a line between the two, then, if we can draw one at all?).

I emphasize biologically and statistically because the biology of every individual is different in itself (trivial example: on average males are bigger and taller than females but that’s certainly not true for all individuals. Not to mention that some biologically male individuals might identify as females or as neither and viceversa) and statistics, when applied to an already developed individual, means nothing. As the probability of your baby being born a male or a female loses all its meaning once the baby is actually born, the fact that the favourite color of 60% of girls aged 5-8 is pink (totally made up data) has no relevance when your child demands the green blanket and ewws when she sees the pink one. So the fact that statistically men are better at systematic thinking, or less emotional, or less empathic, or worse at communication skills, or more interested in sports, or less interested in pink things really has no meaning when you are on a table being cut open. The person with your life literally in their hands is not a statistics. She might be the less emotional surgeon in the hospital or he might be the most emotional. Or even! She might be the less emotional and still make a mistake and lose her shit and not know what to do. He might be the most emotional and make a mistake and still perfectly repair the damage.

Generalization is all well and good for idle chitchat and for making general decisions (another trivial example: if 99,5% of people work in Milan and 0,5% work in a whateverish town in the milanese hinterland, you’ll provide more extensive and better transportation for the 99,5%. Or at least you should).
Nonetheless, when you are talking about persons, about single individuals, you can’t treat them as statistics, because they are not (also you should always question what is said in a statistics, because the first thing they teach you about statistics is that it is, at heart, bullshit).

[also can we just erase the word ‘emotional’ from the vocaboulary, since it doesn’t really mean anything, please and thank you?]

07:23 pm: malaisemarlene1 note

Link
Kurtofsky kiss scene: language is SO INTERESTING and may say SO MUCH MORE.

miharaemiko:

So, I was thinking the other day, pirates (yes, I think more often that you would know) how some things change when English dialogs are translated into another language… And immediately “Never Been Kiss” came to my mind: in the kiss scene, Kurt calls Dave’s ‘hamhock’, right? But what do he call him in other languages?

Let’s make this a group work, people! We need to know about this! Re-blog and answer in your own language, please pirates!

EDIT TO ADD NEW INFO!

Read More

The Italian version is ‘salamone’, which literally means ‘big salami’. Figuratively it means something like ‘moron’, and I can’t decide if it sounds more dirty or just plain awkward.

03:04 pm: malaisemarlene24 notes

Link

I’m officially one of these people who write on their laptops in coffee shops while sipping something pretentious like a chai tea latte.

I feel like the Milanese shoppers are judging me.

[Related quote from Family Guy:
(After Meg finishes typing on laptop.)
Chris: Meg, you are so full of crap. You’re like those people who sit in Starbucks and publicly write on their laptops. (Scene with two guys typing on their laptops in Starbucks.)
Guy #2: Hey, getting some writing done there buddy?
Guy #1: Yeah, setting up in public so everybody can watch me type my big screenplay.
Guy #2: Me too. All real writers need to be seen writing otherwise what’s the point, right?
Guy #1: You should totally write that down!
Guy #2: Okay, will you watch me?]

04:01 pm: malaisemarlene5 notes

video

duchesscloverly:

Max Adler you perfect, perfect human being.

03:24 am: malaisemarlene5,757 notes

Link
On why anti-Kurtofsky arguments make (mostly) no sense

Know what my true and ultimate OTP is? It’s me/quality television. It’s me/not feeling like I wasted 40 minutes to an hour of my time. And that’s it.

People who think that they have a valid argument as to why RIB should never even consider making Kurtofsky happen should stick to Disney (because what Dave is going through it’s really fucking real, and I know it’s ugly and not videogenic, but it could get so much better) or they are hypocrites/have an ulterior motive (it’d mess with their ship, Max Adler doesn’t get their juices flowing, whatever). 

The only argument I might accept is “Glee is a comedy, it should be lighthearted, Karofsky’s storyline is too serious/angsty/difficult to handle”, because at least it’s on the right ground: it’s not a moral judgement, it’s a theoretical judgement. And, well… on a theoretical level, it’s kind of true: you’d probably never see something like that on any other comedy series (but the subject of Glee’s identity, or lack thereof, is quite complicated).

Anything else? Bollocks. Literature/movies/tv shows 101: a good person does not necessarily a good character make and a good character does not necessarily a good person make. Same with storylines.

IMO Dave is both a good character and on his way to becoming a pretty good person, and a Kurtofsky-oriented storyline could mean so much to many people (me included) and could be very beneficial to both Dave and Kurt.
BUT even if it wasn’t, everything in fiction is fair game. As I said in the beginning, the most important thing for me is quality, regardless of a character’s happiness (come on, it’s a tv show in which people sing: Kurt is going to end up as happy as a dog with two dicks) or if it sets a good example or if it bothers someone.
Try and come up with a reason why Kurtofsky wouldn’t be a quality storyline, that I’d seriously like to read.

If I wanted a moral lesson, I’d read Kant. If I wanted to live vicariously through a character, I’d take a thorough look at my life and at my choices. If I couldn’t stand mean douchebags, I most surely wouldn’t be watching Glee.

10:02 pm: malaisemarlene49 notes

Link
Malaise_Marlene: About the "klex"

mystery-of-the-cake-topper:

malaisemarlene:

I was thinking… when the PK/PQ spoiler got out, we all remember what Brad’s reaction was (but here’s a reminder, because it’s always good to be reminded that Brad lurvs Dave: “Who are you to spoil something talented people have spent months to create?”)

And now, a seemingly legit spoiler about…

That’s what bothered me too. But I sort of understand it. Glee has a four weeks hiatus right now and without extraordinary promotion will probably lost viewers. I think that’s the reason why these big spoilers (Brittana dating for episode 4, Finchel and Klaine sex and Dave at gay bar for episode 5) were revealed. 

I agree with this, but what percentage of viewers actually looks up for spoilers? I guess the casual viewer doesn’t, and those who do would probably keep watching anyway.

But what bothers me the most is how blunt and detailed these spoilers are: wouldn’t it be enough to hint what is going to happen?

03:49 pm: malaisemarlene40 notes

Link
About the “klex”

I was thinking… when the PK/PQ spoiler got out, we all remember what Brad’s reaction was (but here’s a reminder, because it’s always good to be reminded that Brad lurvs Dave: “Who are you to spoil something talented people have spent months to create?”)

And now, a seemingly legit spoiler about Kurt and Blaine having sex (complete with details about the context -the car, ecc-) gets released more than a month before the actual episode and… nobody cares? For such an accurate spoiler to be leaked, I guess it has to be a move orchestrated by the writers themselves (or whoever is in charge of those things).

But… shouldn’t that be considered, like, one of the highlights of the season? Something to keep deeply under wraps?

I mean… what?

(I don’t want to read too much into this with my shipper goggles but well, that Kurt and Dave being Prom Kings seems to be considered way more relevant/surprising than Kurt and Blaine going all the way is quite satisfying)

03:08 pm: malaisemarlene40 notes

picture

(Source: ppppana, via ditadipolvere)

05:16 pm: malaisemarlene17 notes

10:57 pm: malaisemarlene2,162 notes

photoset

(via kimlennox)

12:30 am: malaisemarlene11,348 notes