via

Jul12 2014 image

via

May23 2014 image

heliotrooper:

AND HERE WE HAVE MY BIGGEST FUCKING PET PEEVE

heliotrooper:

AND HERE WE HAVE MY BIGGEST FUCKING PET PEEVE

(Source: moosekleenex)

via

May6 2014 image

via

May6 2014 quote

A few months back, I was asked to participate in a debate on the topic of whether men should have to pay on dates. (I was “the feminist.”) It turned out that the male debater and I didn’t really disagree much on that topic. I said that, generally, whoever asks the other person out pays for that date, and then at some point couples generally transition into sharing costs in whatever way works for them. He was actually pretty happy to pay for first dates; he just wanted women to say thank you and to not use him. I had no problem with that.

I think he said that women should offer to pay half, knowing they’ll probably be turned down. I said, well, sometimes — but what if the other person invited you someplace really expensive? What if you agreed to a date with the guy and he spent an hour saying crazy racist shit to you and you felt like you couldn’t escape? This is what led to our real disagreement.

The male debater felt strongly that if a woman wasn’t interested in a second date, she should say so on the spot. If the man says, “Let’s do this again sometime,” the woman shouldn’t say, “Sure, great,” and then back out later. I said that that was a nice ideal, but that he should keep in mind that most women spent most of their lives living in low-level fear of physical aggression from men. I think about avoiding rape (or other violence) every time I walk home from the subway, every time there’s an unexpected knock at the door, and certainly every time I piss off an unhinged man. So, if I were on a date with a man who I felt was unbalanced, creepy, overly aggressive, or possibly violent, and he asked if I wanted to “do this again sometime,” I would say whatever I felt would avoid conflict. And then I would leave, wait awhile, and hope that letting him down politely a few days later would avoid his finding me and turning my skin into an overcoat.

The male debater was furious that I had even brought this up. He felt that the threat of violence against women was irrelevant, and that I was playing some kind of “rape card” as a debate trick. He got angrier and angrier as we argued. I also got angrier and angrier, although I worked hard to keep speaking in a calm and considered way. He was shouting and cutting me off when I tried to speak. I pointed out that the debater himself was displaying exactly the sort of behavior that would make me very uncomfortable on a date. THAT made him livid.

He then called me “passive-aggressive.”

I was genuinely taken aback. “Actually,” I said, “I call this ‘behaving myself.’” It’s a lot of work to stay calm when you’re just as furious as the other person, and that other person is shouting at you. I felt that I was acting like a grownup — at some emotional cost to myself — and I wanted credit, not insults, for being able to speak in a normal tone of voice when I was having to explain things like, “We can’t tell who the rapists are before they turn violent, so sometimes we have to be cautious with men who do not intend to harm us.”

via

Apr27 2014 quote

Ancient moon priestesses were called virgins. ‘Virgin’ meant not married, not belonging to a man - a woman who was ‘one-in-herself’. The very word derives from a Latin root meaning strength, force, skill; and was later applied to men: virile. Ishtar, Diana, Astarte, Isis were all called virgin, which did not refer to sexual chastity, but sexual independence. And all great culture heroes of the past, mythic or historic, were said to be born of virgin mothers: Marduk, Gilgamesh, Buddha, Osiris, Dionysus, Genghis Khan, Jesus - they were all affirmed as sons of the Great Mother, of the Original One, their worldly power deriving from her. When the Hebrews used the word, and in the original Aramaic, it meant ‘maiden’ or ‘young woman’, with no connotations to sexual chastity. But later Christian translators could not conceive of the ‘Virgin Mary’ as a woman of independent sexuality, needless to say; they distorted the meaning into sexually pure, chaste, never touched.
Monica Sjoo, The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth  (via anya-eye)

(Source: ynannarising)

via

Apr20 2014 audio

played 75,137 times

themarsresolution:

This Charming Man by The Smiths, 1984.

I would go out tonight
But I haven’t got a stitch to wear
This man said “It’s gruesome
That someone so handsome should care.”

via

Apr1 2014 video

(Source: bryko)

via

Mar17 2014 image

phoolcat:

muchanimal-veryfeminism-wow:

misandry-mermaid:

mensrightsactivism:

This was actually said by a prominent member of the Men’s rights community on Reddit who then proceeded to get 24(!) upvotes:

Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn’t assault her, didn’t touch her… all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.
How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?
This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men’s freedom.

Now that’s what I call a real men’s rights issue. Could you expect anything less from a hate group?
Screencap (and more info) over at the always excellent Man Boobz.

Mens Rights Activism: hard at work defending sexual harassment.

men’s rights: where a man’s right to sexually harass a woman based on whether they’ve decided she meets some standard of “modesty” she has no say in, should supersede a woman’s right to basic personal boundaries and human decency.
men’s rights: when a woman freely making the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body, not affecting anyone else in any way, needs to “accept the consequences of her actions”- but men who choose to harass women shouldn’t have to face any consequences for THAT choice, even though it hurts someone else.
men’s rights: a “movement” (purposeless online misogynistic circlejerk) where rights are defined as behaviors that you feel entitled to carry out without being even mildly criticized for it, no matter how many other people are negatively impacted by that behavior.
men’s rights: where being asked to show basic human decency towards women is “infringing” upon a man’s freedom not to do that, even though that is how a society is supposed to fucking function. because fuck them, you shouldn’t have to consider other human beings when you make your choices. how dare they?
men’s rights: you got yours (basic human rights). so fuck everybody else. now, let’s talk about how poor people don’t deserve to earn a living wage, because then the services you use every day might cost you an extra $20 per year.

men’s rights: a movement dedicated to preserving and forwarding the rights of men to continue the subjugation and abuse of women.

phoolcat:

muchanimal-veryfeminism-wow:

misandry-mermaid:

mensrightsactivism:

This was actually said by a prominent member of the Men’s rights community on Reddit who then proceeded to get 24(!) upvotes:

Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn’t assault her, didn’t touch her… all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.

How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?

This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men’s freedom.

Now that’s what I call a real men’s rights issue. Could you expect anything less from a hate group?

Screencap (and more info) over at the always excellent Man Boobz.

Mens Rights Activism: hard at work defending sexual harassment.

men’s rights: where a man’s right to sexually harass a woman based on whether they’ve decided she meets some standard of “modesty” she has no say in, should supersede a woman’s right to basic personal boundaries and human decency.

men’s rights: when a woman freely making the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body, not affecting anyone else in any way, needs to “accept the consequences of her actions”- but men who choose to harass women shouldn’t have to face any consequences for THAT choice, even though it hurts someone else.

men’s rights: a “movement” (purposeless online misogynistic circlejerk) where rights are defined as behaviors that you feel entitled to carry out without being even mildly criticized for it, no matter how many other people are negatively impacted by that behavior.

men’s rights: where being asked to show basic human decency towards women is “infringing” upon a man’s freedom not to do that, even though that is how a society is supposed to fucking function. because fuck them, you shouldn’t have to consider other human beings when you make your choices. how dare they?

men’s rights: you got yours (basic human rights). so fuck everybody else. now, let’s talk about how poor people don’t deserve to earn a living wage, because then the services you use every day might cost you an extra $20 per year.

men’s rights: a movement dedicated to preserving and forwarding the rights of men to continue the subjugation and abuse of women.

via

Mar16 2014 video

(Source: awkwardvagina)

via

Mar6 2014 text

imaginegarroshellscream:

Imagine Garrosh Hellscream showing off his new tattoos of meaningful, spiritual Pandaren words. “This one means ‘Anger’, and this one means ‘Pride’.” It turns out they mean “Steamed Crab Surprise” and “Black Pepper Ribs and Shrimp”, respectively.