prokopetz:

prokopetz:

The hilarious thing about the “ritual purposes” meme in anthropology is that strictly speaking it’s almost never wrong. The anthropological definition of a “ritual” is so broad that you can describe practically any activity that’s a. performed in private or in the company of a well defined in-group and b. has an element of routine as a ritual and be technically correct. Brushing your teeth after every meal? That’s a ritual. Your toothbrush is a ritual implement.

@dude1818 replied:

Don’t they usually modify that claim with “religious”?

It was formerly customary to include that qualifier, yes, and some sources still do, but defining a ritual as something that’s done primarily for spiritual rather than pragmatic purposes is falling out of favour for several reasons:

1. Many routine, private-or-in-group activities have both spiritual and pragmatic components, and it’s not always easy to tell which is is which, let alone which is to be considered the activity’s “primary” purpose.

2. A lot of people don’t actually know the pragmatic purpose of their routines – they just carry them out because that’s what they were taught – and whether a routine counts as “for pragmatic purposes” when the persons enacting it aren’t aware of what those purposes are is an epistemic quagmire with no bottom.

3. Defining “pragmatic purposes” is harder than you’d think. For example, does “fostering social cohesion” count? How about “entertainment”? It’s surprisingly easy to define a ritual as something that lacks a pragmatic purpose, then come up with a definition of “pragmatic purpose” that disqualifies literally everything.

4. For that matter, coming up with a working definition of “spiritual” that applies across cultures without bashing everything into the mould of Western European Christianity turns out to be a huge pain in the ass, too.

winky-the-alcoholic-elf:

stars-bean:

“Well, have you ever fixed a nose before?
“No, but I’ve done several toes, and how different are they, really?”

mmkay but also can we talk about how Luna said he looked ordinary? Harry James Potter has never looked ordinary in his life, because he has always been at the epicenter of the wizarding war, even before his parents were killed, because they were such well known activists. Thrice defying Voldecunt, right? Well anyway, that’s the magic of Luna really, is that she sees Harry as Harry and not as Harry Potter and that’s fucking cool. And the magic of their friendship is that that is mutual. Harry sees Luna as Luna and not as Looney. So Harry saying brilliant here? I don’t think it’s even sassy. Looking ordinary, being assured he can enter the castle and blend in with the crowd, that’s what he needs. That’s what he craves. And Luna knows this. ANyway I’m emotional

“Should parents read their daughter’s texts or monitor her online activity for bad language and inappropriate content?”

cryoverkiltmilk:

get-yr-social-work-rage-on:

intersectionalparenting:

isitscary:

daeranilen:

daeranilen:

daeranilen:

Earlier today, I served as the “young woman’s voice” in a panel of local experts at a Girl Scouts speaking event. One question for the panel was something to the effect of, “Should parents read their daughter’s texts or monitor her online activity for bad language and inappropriate content?”

I was surprised when the first panelist answered the question as if it were about cyberbullying. The adult audience nodded sagely as she spoke about the importance of protecting children online.

I reached for the microphone next. I said, “As far as reading your child’s texts or logging into their social media profiles, I would say 99.9% of the time, do not do that.”

Looks of total shock answered me. I actually saw heads jerk back in surprise. Even some of my fellow panelists blinked.

Everyone stared as I explained that going behind a child’s back in such a way severs the bond of trust with the parent. When I said, “This is the most effective way to ensure that your child never tells you anything,” it was like I’d delivered a revelation.

It’s easy to talk about the disconnect between the old and the young, but I don’t think I’d ever been so slapped in the face by the reality of it. It was clear that for most of the parents I spoke to, the idea of such actions as a violation had never occurred to them at all.

It alarms me how quickly adults forget that children are people.

Apparently people are rediscovering this post somehow and I think that’s pretty cool! Having experienced similar violations of trust in my youth, this is an important issue to me, so I want to add my personal story:

Around age 13, I tried to express to my mother that I thought I might have clinical depression, and she snapped at me “not to joke about things like that.” I stopped telling my mother when I felt depressed.

Around age 15, I caught my mother reading my diary. She confessed that any time she saw me write in my diary, she would sneak into my room and read it, because I only wrote when I was upset. I stopped keeping a diary.

Around age 18, I had an emotional breakdown while on vacation because I didn’t want to go to college. I ended up seeing a therapist for – surprise surprise – depression.

Around age 21, I spoke on this panel with my mother in the audience, and afterwards I mentioned the diary incident to her with respect to this particular Q&A. Her eyes welled up, and she said, “You know I read those because I was worried you were depressed and going to hurt yourself, right?”

TL;DR: When you invade your child’s privacy, you communicate three things:

  1. You do not respect their rights as an individual.
  2. You do not trust them to navigate problems or seek help on their own.
  3. You probably haven’t been listening to them.

Information about almost every issue that you think you have to snoop for can probably be obtained by communicating with and listening to your child.

Part of me is really excited to see that the original post got 200 notes because holy crap 200 notes, and part of me is really saddened that something so negative has resonated with so many people.

I love this post.

Too many parents wonder why their kids aren’t honest with them, and never realize their own non-receptive behavior and their failure to listen are the reasons why.

At one point or another, a child WILL keep a secret from you, but if it’s to a point where all their emotional feelings are being poured away from you as opposed to toward you, it’s probably because you haven’t been emotionally trustworthy or open. 

Adultism 😦

not to mention, you then take away one of your child’s coping mechanisms. if your parents read your journal, you’re never writing in it again. if your parents monitor your conversations with friends, you won’t tell them when you’re depressed anymore. if you have a therapist that reports what you say to your parents, you won’t tell that therapist anything. now all those methods of venting, feeling better, self-soothing, sorting out your issues, and feeling safe are gone.

“i want information” is not synonymous with “i want my child to talk to me.” those are two separate goals, but i think parents conflate them – i want my child to talk to me, but since they won’t, i’m stealing information from them. no. you didn’t ever want them to talk to you. you wanted information. if you wanted them to talk to you, if that was your entire end goal, you would have approached things completely differently. stealing information from a child ensures they will never talk to you again. but if all you want is information, then you can take it however you want and call it a parenting success.

if what you wanted was a child who talks to you, you would apply the same principles you do to literally any other human interaction in your life, and cultivate a relationship and trust.

I had to stifle my horror and revulsion at my last job, when a conversation about removing the door from a child’s bedroom came up, and I was only one not in favor of it.

May be worth noting I was the only millennial in a conversation that was otherwise full of baby boomers.

zombeesknees:

#some people were committed to ross and rachel — that didn’t even register for me bc it was all about Fran/Max Sheffield  #one
of the (many) reasons Love Actually gives me the shits it’s bc it
refuses to acknowledge it’s all about the master/maid dynamic
  #and pretends it’s showing this varied and poetic spectrum  #whereas The Nanny is like yeah we’re doing master/maid  #TO THE HILT  #every trope every joke every shippy stupid jane eyre emotional beat they label and OWN  #and they did it all in canned laugher bewitched i love lucy style sitcom  #AND I WAS IN LOOOOOOVE  #it’s like if you’re gonna do faulein maria and captain vontrapp you need to REALLY DO IT  #with zero illusions  #(in other news: the fashions were so utterly righteous omg)  #(again
with my point about how the 90’s were not all about the kurt and
courtney aesthetic – it was mostly high glam big hair and prints)

tiger-in-the-flightdeck:

evilkillerpoptarts:

naamahdarling:

becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys:

motivatedslacker:

ainawgsd:

Owls are masters of disguise, blending seamlessly into their surroundings. 

These trees appear to be judging me.

They are, but the owls are beautiful

I CANNOT FIND THE OWL IN THE FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM.  HELP.

The one with the stone wall.  I … am … so confused.  Where?!

It took me forever, but he’s in the focused section, standing at the top.  His face is in front of the snow.  He is smol.

The rock wall took me forever. I had to actually let me eyes go out of focus like one of those Magic Eye posters before I could see the sneaky little bugger.