Q:No lie a kid told me he didnt want to do Drum Corps because of the gloves tan 😭😭😭
this activity isn’t for everyone
Work until your idols become your rivals.
Billboard demonstrating gender stereotypes as most people automatically assume that Alex is the boy.
Actually, I’ve studied design and advertising, and I can tell you that the reason people would look at this and immediately assume Alex is the boy is because, quite simply, the boy is the focal point of the ad.
English-speaking readers’ line of sight goes from left to right and up to down. This ad leads the viewer from the words MEET ALEX etc straight to the boy and then over and down to the girl. I didn’t even notice there was a set of parenthesis with words in them in the ad until I looked the fourth time.
This is a fallacious confirmation bias, as anyone looking at it will assume Alex is the focal point (i.e. The Boy) and then if they’re perceptive they’ll notice the words at the bottom. Aha! Those damn gender stereotypes gotcha again! Except no, because the ad literally forces you to read it as “Alex is the boy” by the visual language and lines of sight.
A better ad would have been structured from top to bottom instead of left to right, and wouldn’t have pushed the girl, the real subject of the ad (who, by the way, has been VISUALLY PUSHED OUT OF HER RIGHTFUL SPACE ON THE AD BY HER BROTHER) off to the corner as far away from her identifiers as possible.
Here, I’ll make you a better ad.
Bam. Shitty stock photo but you get the point. If anyone sees this and assumes Alex is the boy, they don’t have the the ad layout to use as an excuse for their internalized gender shittery. Likewise, the ad isn’t actively trying to make you read it a certain way and THEN making you feel guilty for interpreting it the way they designed it to be.
Q:What's the best way for a poor person to avoid buying sweatshop stuff? I hate what happens in sweatshops but at the same time my options are limited due to money and what's being sold in my area :( Do you have any advice?
Thrift is the only thing i can think of
Not buying from sweatshops would do nothing to improve the lives of the workers so it’s probably best to not waste energy on shopping “ethically” and concentrate on organising our own workplaces and communities.
Over the past decade, factory and sweatshop workers across East and South Asia have been militantly organising. Their unions are getting stronger, they are taking direct action against bosses and militias, and they are gaining better wages and working conditions all the time.
To boycott the products they make, when no union or sweatshop workers are calling for a boycott, doesn’t strengthen their struggle, it’ll weaken it.
Nike or Primark, whatever you buy you’re buying from exploited workers. And that includes the first world primark shop workers and delivery people. You cannot boycott capitalism under a globalised capitalist system.
Boycotts lead to less profits lead to already exploited workers being laid off. Unless they call for a boycott (in which they’ve hopefully prepared for the fallout) you’re only added more exploitation and starvation. It’s a fucking terrible tight-rope act that was purposefully designed to weaken solidarity and direct action.
special thanks to thatrandombandkid!!
- me: i don't even care. i'm not going to talk about this anymore.
- me: and you know what else? [2000 word rant]
PSAT: please flip over to find the code for your gender, ethnicity, religion, major, future partner, names of your children, the coordinates of the lost city of Atlantis, and the barcode of a Walgreens gift card that you can win by writing his sentence in cursive.