I’ve noticed that most liberals would take a philosophy class over an economic class. While conservatives would much rather economics. Which one’s more useful in politics?
Welllllllll, a class in philosophy would allow a liberal to weigh different perspectives before coming to a reasonable conclusion. A class in economics would allow a Republican to use terminology without understanding it and destroy the economy.
Afghanistan has appointed a 50-year-old mother-of-five as its first female police chief. Col. Jamila Bayaz said her appointment was a sign of progress in the violence-ravaged country.
"This is a chance not just for me, but for the women of Afghanistan," she told NBC News Wednesday. "I will not waste it. I will prove that we can handle this burden."
Despite being one of 2,000 female police officers in the country, Bayaz is the first to be promoted to such a senior rank. She will head up the 1st District of Kabul, one of the most important areas of the Afghan capital.
Nearly 9,000 military veterans live on the reservation that straddles the New Mexico-Arizona border, more than half of them in what the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs says is substandard housing. For years, few funds were allocated for reservation housing for veterans, and much of what was allocated did not reach its intended targets because of mismanagement, U.S. and tribal officials say. Federal veterans’ home loan guarantees cannot be used to build homes on tribal land.
all these fucking comics saying just “drop everything and do what you love, artists, cost is no object”, they never end, there’s so many of them
where is the comic that says “artists! make it easier to comfortably fund doing what you love by drawing dragons fucking on commission on furaffinity, eventually building up enough of a portfolio that you’re paying rent every single time you draw two fantasy monster dicks frotting furiously against each other”
That second part would be inspiring if Furaffinity didn’t kind of scare me.
The problem that needs to be fixed is not kick all the girls out of YA, it’s teach boys that stories featuring female protagonists or written by female authors also apply to them. Boys fall in love. Boys want to be important. Boys have hopes and fears and dreams and ambitions. What boys also have is a sexist society in which they are belittled for “liking girl stuff.” Male is neutral, female is specific.
I heard someone mention that Sarah Rees Brennan’s THE DEMON’S LEXICON would be great for boys, but they’d never read it with that cover. Friends, then the problem is NOT with the book. It’s with the society that’s raising that boy. It’s with the community who inculcated that boy with the idea that he can’t read a book with an attractive guy on the cover.
Here’s how we solve the OMG SO MANY GIRLS IN YA problem: quit treating women like secondary appendages. Quit treating women’s art like it’s a niche, novelty creation only for girls. Quit teaching boys to fear the feminine, quit insisting that it’s a hardship for men to have to relate to anything that doesn’t specifically cater to them.
Because if I can watch Raiders of the Lost Ark and want to grow up to be an archaeologist, there’s no reason at all that a boy shouldn’t be able to read THE DEMON’S LEXICON with its cover on. My friends, sexism doesn’t just hurt women, and our young men’s abysmal rate of attraction to literacy is the proof of it.
If you want to fix the male literary crisis, here’s your solution: