If you're in a new romantic connection (or maybe you're about to be?), congrats! ๐ฅณ You've hit the effing jackpot! This person is solid, honest, a great communicator, ๐๐ฝ
๐ซโญ๐๐ฎ #AfternoonNotes
Air placements (Aquarius โ, Gemini โ, Libra โ): sun, moon, rising, Venus, Mars
You have been presented with many challenges and changes, Air-loves. Not only are you learning and receiving downloads in record time and amounts, but you're tryna ๐๐ฝ
If you're in a new romantic connection (or maybe you're about to be?), congrats! ๐ฅณ You've hit the effing jackpot! This person is solid, honest, a great communicator, ๐๐ฝ
Great job on turning your back on nonsense and bullshit! It hasn't ๐๐ฝ
Though you've been betrayed, and seems relatively recently, you have so much balance and justice coming into your life, as you've been manifesting and daydreaming about, when it comes to ๐๐ฝ
And where ๐๐ฝ
For those of you who are creatives, you may want ๐๐ฝ
Go outside & experience nature. If it's too cold or ๐๐ฝ
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thingโphysical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thingโphysical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?