Let’s examine a traditionally male-dominated role that is very well-respected, and well-paid, in many parts of the world—that of a doctor. In the UK, it is listed as one of the top ten lucrative careers, and the average annual income of a family doctor in the US is well into six figures. It also confers on you significant social status, and a common stereotype in Asian communities is of parents encouraging their children to become doctors.

One of my lecturers at university once presented us with this thought exercise: why are doctors so highly paid, and so well-respected? Our answers were predictable. Because they save lives, their skills are extremely important, and it takes years and years of education to become one. All sound, logical reasons. But these traits that doctors possess are universal. So why is it, she asked, that doctors in Russia are so lowly paid? Making less than £7,500 a year, it is one of the lowest paid professions in Russia, and poorly respected at that. Why is this?

The answer is crushingly, breathtakingly simple. In Russia, the majority of doctors are women. Here’s a quote from Carol Schmidt, a geriatric nurse practitioner who toured medical facilities in Moscow: “Their status and pay are more like our blue-collar workers, even though they require about the same amount of training as the American doctor… medical practice is stereotyped as a caring vocation ‘naturally suited‘ to women, [which puts it at] a second-class level in the Soviet psyche.”

What this illustrates perfectly is this—women are not devalued in the job market because women’s work is seen to have little value. It is the other way round. Women’s work is devalued in the job market because women are seen to have little value.

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons (via muffdiver)

stickywins:

yellowcomics:

Not For Puppies

First yellow comic in a long time! Steve wrote this one.

stickywins:

yellowcomics:

Not For Puppies

First yellow comic in a long time! Steve wrote this one.

ponett:

problem: a ton of people who used to read homestuck have lost interest for a number of reasons such as the comic’s decline in quality, the long hiatus, shifting opinions of hussie as a person, and even simply just because the comic has been going on for years and the readers’ tastes are changing as we grow up

hussie’s solution: come back from a year-long hiatus by making the worst character in homestuck be his normal unbearable self and repeat the same two jokes about him being A) a bad artist, B) a deviantart weeaboo, and C) a raging misogynist. for 30 pages. also ripping off and mocking a random piece of homestuck fanart from four years ago. because who wouldn’t love that am i right

this dog is FURIOUSLY scratching his ears and rubbing his face on the carpet and he’s literally been doing this for the past 30 minutes, he looks like he’s so so uncomfortable

I don’t know for SURE that it’s a food thing but I do know that it’s a really common symptom of grain sensitivity 

I’m just not really sure how to tactfully bring up it up though because grain free food isn’t even available at the damn grocery store

why is the only pet food that’s easily accessible/convenient complete garbage

livertaker:

a 9 panel tribute to Princess Mononoke, one of my favorite movies in the world 

livertaker:

a 9 panel tribute to Princess Mononoke, one of my favorite movies in the world 

(Source: makos-lightningrod)

say hello to my best friend for the weekend

ffauves:

cactus-mum:

this is ffauves

true 

ffauves:

cactus-mum:

this is ffauves

true 

separating the art from the artist is such a complex and frustrating issue that’s become surprisingly relevant to me lately (re: exposing of a very very popular artist, one who inspired me throughout my childhood, as an abuser)

is it wrong to feel inspired by art by someone who’s done shitty and problematic things? do colors and lines take on their own identity that can be separate from the artist who made them? how many hugely famous figures in art history were complete assholes, but continue to be revered anyway?

I’ve always seen it as a sign of maturity that people who I don’t necessarily care for in my class are able to comment respectfully and intelligently on my work during critique, and vice versa. I suppose that’s different on account of being an academic space, but still

it’s also weird because in an environment like tumblr it’s VERY easy to reblog (and implicitly support) something without knowing any background info on the person who made it, which creates an immediate separation of the art from the artist

I’ve always been surrounded by the philosophy that everything you produce contains a little part of you but at the same time it’s so frustrating that a piece of art, which on its own can be a teaching tool and immensely inspiring for others, can be ruined by the actions of its creator

I don’t necessarily have answers to any of these questions but it’s very troubling to me

razorthecurse sent: please... please do more watercolour/colour pencil works

haha it’s REALLY not likely but you never know

next time I’ll definitely buy hot press so I don’t have to fight the texture of the paper so much