What's [Really] Going On

babyslothsandpuppysizedelephants:

barbreyryswells:

nahintho:

sapphrikah:

fuckyeahhardfemme:

khymeira:

Hey Quee!

Look,
look.

I fixed her. I’m sure it was just an honest tonality mistake.  They couldn’t have possibly been trying to wash her out.

Right?

fucking hell man!! the fucking difference! racists gonna whitewash 

I’m so tired of this shit.

She’s so not-give-a-fuck, I’m waiting for her to say something about this shit. Call a motherfucker out, Rihanna!

yes. my first thought when i saw these was damn she’s hot but why so white?

i can’t.

according to media i’m not light enough

I really, really wish feminists included this phenomenon more in their discussions about how the media affects girls’ body image. :/

rabbleprochoice:

stfusexists:

Shocker. 

Because if there is one thing that is severely lacking when it comes to abortion and reproductive rights, it’s a man’s opinion.

Not like we just had an entire panel of (religious) men testify to congress about birth control use and how they oppose it…and no women…at all.

Love,

Rabble

thethirddecade1121:

Also it is a fucking right to have consensual sex. What the hell??

Many men who harass women say their intent is to compliment them, but why do they usually not “compliment” women who are accompanied by other men and often only do it when a woman is alone? Why do they tend to object to other men “complimenting” their female significant other (if applicable), female friends, or female family members? Why do some men grow hostile and violent when women do not thank them and act flattered? Why do they feel compelled to compliment women at all? Rarely are they expecting a date. Many times they do not even wait to see a woman’s reaction as they fly by in their car or as they turn to start harassing the next woman. They are doing it to exert their power, to entertain their friends, to relieve boredom, or do demonstrate that they can evaluate a complete stranger to her face, just because she is a woman.

Stop Street Harassment: Holly Kearl (via completelymoribund)

The thing that so many men need to understand is that women do not consider it a compliment when they are being harassed on the street. Women usually feel either embarrassed or terrified or a combination of the two. So stop fucking doing it.

(via sexytypewriter)

it’s so telling that men tend to do this when they’re in a group of other men. and i’ve never had it happen when i’m hanging out with dudes, especially not when i’m with my ginormous dad (most men don’t give a fuck about harassing me if i’m with my mom who is as small as i am). so if it isn’t sexual, or threatening, and you just want to ~make me smile~ then why can you only do it when i’m perceived as vulnerable?

(via hyper—ballad)

I would add that it rarely happens or when I am around men who know that I am dating someone at that time. Many men (certainly not all) are willing to lay off if they perceive that you are “owned” - otherwise, you’re public property, and they’re free to treat you however they like. Any competition that erupts is less to flatter the woman than to establish temporary rights to her, even if they must degrade her to do so.

(via desliz)

that or the nature of the so-called compliments will change if youre w a man. they will go from a respectful “you look beautiful this evening, ma’am” when youre w a dude to some vulgar shit about your pussy, if youre alone. because youre not worthy of respect as just a woman.

(via baddominicana)

So much yes to everything. The only time guys won’t try to approach me is when I’m with a male companion, but even then, I’ve gotten stares and looks that made me uncomfortable. It shouldn’t matter whether I’m alone, with my guy friends, or with my boyfriend; I don’t want your attention, so fuck the hell off and don’t talk to me. I shouldn’t have to carry pepper spray with me at all times and constantly check my surroundings just in case something bad happens.

(via susurrations)

prettycraycrayfan:

“How do you teach homosexuality? Is it like French? I was born of heterosexual parents, taught by heterosexual teachers, in a fiercely heterosexual society. So why then am I homosexual? And, no offense meant, if it were true that children mimic their teachers, we’d have a hell of a lot more nuns running around.”

-Harvey Milk, Milk (2008)

thegreat48:

If there were any such person who could be called Queen of the Suffragists, it would be Alice Paul. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, Paul became an active member of NAWSA (the National Women’s Suffrage Association). She focused on getting a…

stfuconservatives:

ethiopienne:

deliciouskaek:

14kgoldnyc:

sanityscraps:

goldenheartedrose:

soultired:

goldenheartedrose:

inflateablefilth:

nothingaboutus-withoutus:

artemispotter:

Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Nice try, Colbert.

Leviticus was written approximately 1400 years before Jesus’ birth.

Nice try, artemispotter.

Old Testament =/= New Testament. Seriously. Also, Leviticus also commands you to learn the Torah, which, if you’re getting Old and New confused, you clearly haven’t.

Not to mention the other ridiculous laws in Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, as well), including the following:

  • No mixing of different types of fabric
  • No having sex with a woman on her period
  • Curse your mother or father? You must be killed
  • Disabled people cannot worship God 
  • Stubborn children should be stoned.

So…. still want to argue how valid the OT is?

Also, in the Bible!=Jesus said it, anyway.  Even in the NT, there are a lot of people who aren’t Jesus giving their opinions.

Truth.  

Only if the words are in red (in many translations) does it mean that Jesus said it.

FWIW, the apostle Paul and I would not have been friends.  Mortal enemies is more like it.

Hey, guys, remember that one time when Jesus declared Levitican law irrelevant?

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

-Hebrews 7:18-19.

Having been Jewish for, you know, ever, I am endlessly amused at the Christian Right’s reliance on Leviticus. Even I, who didn’t understand the theological difference between Catholics and Protestants until I took a course on Christianity in college, knew that Jesus was totes anti-Leviticus.

Seriously, people…

^^^^^^^

Ugh thank you. Fellow Christian here. I’ve literally NEVER understood this logic. “hey guys let’s pick one arbitrary part of leviticus to harp on and ignore the fact that 99% of the new testament explicitly tells us the old covenants/laws no longer hold true”

I love it when self-professed “Christians” don’t know the ABSOLUTELY MOST SIMPLE basics of the difference between the Old and New Testament. If you are against gay marriage because of Leviticus, you should also keep kosher and be against tattoos. Otherwise you’re just another FLAMING HYPOCRITE.

-Jess

 This is so interesting to me because I attended catechism from first-eighth grades, and then attended a Catholic high school, and I never learned that we* were supposed to disregard the OT

*I used “we” for simplicity, I’m not religious and attended a Catholic school made me anti-Catholic

[F]or the first several years the SAT was offered, males scored higher than females on the Math section but females achieved higher scores on the Verbal section. ETS policy-makers determined that the Verbal test needed to be “balanced” more in favor of males, and added questions pertaining to politics, business and sports to the Verbal portion. Since that time, males have outscored females on both the Math and Verbal sections. Dwyer notes that no similar effort has been made to “balance” the Math section, and concludes that, “It could be done, but it has not been, and I believe that probably an unconscious form of sexism underlies this pattern. When females show the superior performance, ‘balancing’ is required; when males show the superior performance, no adjustments are necessary.”

“Gender Bias in College Admissions Tests”, FairTest.org. (via vaginawoolf)

We were told our English Lang GCSEs were often about sport or politics because boys often underperformed in that exam. I can’t even fathom the number of things wrong with this kind of thinking.

(via benedictatorship)

damn.

stfuhypocrisy:

In the first verdict of its kind since former President George W. Bush left office, he and several members of his administration have been successfully convicted in absentia of war crimes in Malaysia.

Yes, this is a BFD.

This past Friday, a five panel tribunal delivered a unanimous guilty verdict after a week long trial that, unsurprisingly, was not covered by American media. The witnesses included several ex-Guantanamo detainees that gave testimony on the conditions and human rights violations that were systematically carried out under orders of the Bush administration.

Former President Bush, Former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo that crafted the legal ‘justification’ for torture that basically said, ‘we can if we want to even if it’s illegal’ were the defendants. None were present, of course, but international war crime trials do not require the presence of the accused. The trial was run according to the standards set by the Nuremberg Trials to convict war criminals after World War II.

Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said, “The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts”.

The United States is subject to international law which makes this trial significant beyond the borders of Malaysia. Foreign Policy Journal reports:

President Lamin told a packed courtroom: “As a tribunal of conscience, the tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. The tribunal has no power of enforcement, no power to impose any custodial sentence on any one or more of the 8 convicted persons. What we can do, under Article 31 of Chapter VI of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to submit this finding of conviction by the tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.

“The Tribunal also recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of all the 8 convicted persons be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and be publicized accordingly.

“The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions if any of these Accused persons may enter their jurisdictions.”

The hope is that other countries will hold trials of their own and the guilty verdicts will mount up. This is not that outlandish an idea as Bush and Cheney have not only brazenly admitted they authorized torture in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention, but bragged about it. Nothing more helpful than having a criminal do all the heavy lifting for the prosecution. If enough of these verdicts are passed on to the international courts, they will have no choice but to hold a trial of their own. While Bush won’t be arrested on American soil, he’ll have a very difficult time leaving the country. Already he’s canceled a trip to Switzerland, due to possible charges of war crimes.

The best possible outcome is that the world court delivers a guilty verdict that sends a clear message to President Obama and his successors that the United States is not above the law, American Exceptional-ism be damned. It’s a lesson we’ve forgotten and need to relearn.