My View On Save The Boobs

thepeacockangel:

I don’t have an issue with how this campaign advertises itself.  I honestly could not fucking care even a little bit less, and  wouldn’t give a rat’s ass how they marketed themselves if they actually funded a breast cancer research, because as treatment gets better regardless of what phrase they used to get the money to fund the research that made it better, because it still means fewer dead women, and I’m pretty sure that fewer dead women is DEFINITELY a good thing.

I’m in favor of marketing breast cancer research charities and other worthwhile charities in WHATEVER way is most effective, I don’t care if it’s objectifying, or condescending or problematic or offensive, because at the end of the day if your desire to save my breasts saves my life, I don’t give a fuck about your motivations.  I really just fucking don’t.  You do whatever you have to do to get the money to save lives, and if it takes “save the boobies” to get misogynist douchebags to pay to fund research for breast cancer, so be it.

My issue with the save the boobies campaign is that it contributes no money to research,  it only “promotes awareness” (in other words, is freaking useless as fuck).  So no, I don’t care if we have to get money from misogynists to save lives… but I do object to pandering to misogynists/taking people’s money and NOT saving lives.

"

Romney said the phrase (“binders full of women”) while answering a question that first went to President Barack Obama about inequalities in the workplace and fair pay for women. Obama answered the question by focusing on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which he signed into law.

Romney took a different route in answering the question. He talked about his time as Massachusetts governor and how he wanted to hire some women – and not all men – for his cabinet.

“And – and so we – we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Romney needed help finding women for posts. There were no women in at the top of the all-male Bain Capital. “Binders Full Of Women” was certainly an awkward phrase to say and it failed to even work as an answer to the question. Instead, it reminded people of a time when women wore girdles or women in China bound their feet as status symbol that allowed them to marry into money. For some, it sounded like a great idea for a Halloween costume.

And like Big Bird, it became an instant meme.

Romney then went a bit patriarchal, reminding me of the Dabney Coleman character in the 1980s movie, “9 to 5.”

“Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.”

He continued, saying that his chief of staff couldn’t work late because she had to be home “making dinner” and “being with them when they get home from school.”

Romney said, “Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.”

Do fathers not have to get home and cook dinner? Do they not want to be there for their children when school is out? After all, there are such things as single dads who balance children and work. Mitt Romney has obviously been watching too many episodes of “Leave It To Beaver” on TV Land on the campaign trail. The days of Donna Reed are long over, Mr. Romney.

"

SUZI PARKER, writing in today’s Washington Post, “Mitt Romney’s ‘Binders Full Of Women.’” (via inothernews)

(via caffeinatedfeminist)

Here’s a joke:

karnythia:

bardofwonder:

screwedupscared:

The ~Men’s Rights Movement~.

That’s it.

That’s the joke.

Oh, I get it, Men are far to uncivilized/uncouth/unintelligent/evil to deserve any rights, that’s why the idea of them having advocacy on their behalf similar to what women have is a joke.  That’s not funny.  It’s offensive, and if you can’t see why that’s offensive, switch the genders involved and see if you are offended.  Here ends my vitriol and begins my thinking.

The general idea behind this comment is that since we live in a patriarchal society there is no need for a Men’s Rights Movement because men already have all their rights.  What about Gay Men’s Rights, or Latino Men’s Rights, or Black Men’s Rights, or Asian Men’s Rights, or Poor Men’s Rights, or a Man’s Right to talk about physical abuse, or a Man’s Right to talk about rape, or a Man’s Right to talk about sexual abuse.  These are all Men’s Rights that could use some advocacy just as Women’s Rights groups advocate for women in similar circumstances.

What ever happened to Feminism that Men are universally treated as horrible people because they are male.  The society we live in is not just patriarchal, it is also racist and homophobic and classist, etc. and does not stop it’s predations at minority groups.  Men are treated horribly by other men, and other women because they do not conform to what a ‘Man’ should be.  Why should men not stand up and advocate for increased understanding of men, just as women advocate for increased understanding of women.

When MRA’s start arguing for any of that & stop debating whether or not women have a right to say no? I’m in. Until then? MRA’s can miss me with the bullshit. They don’t care about helping other men, they just want to stop women from thinking they’re people with rights. For reference? See every post by MRA’s about creeps. Or any discussion between MRA’s about child support or choice. Hell, take a moment to look in on their discussions about street harassment while you’re at & you can even play spot the rapist in the comments if your stomach is strong enough.

hamburgerjack:

lightspeedsound:

I really fucking hate it when white people are like “well most white people aren’t racist.”  

like fuck you.

The reason you think most white people aren’t racist is because you’re NOT A FUCKING TARGET FOR WHITE PEOPLE’S RACISM.

I have heard the argument that “because I grew up in an area predominantly white, racism wasn’t an issue. Black people were just…normal. Really.” 

No, bitch. It’s because there wasn’t as much opportunity to be racist. 

And while we’re at it, the whole pro-men’s rights argument of “most men aren’t rapists/douchebags/creepers”?

Yeah, fuck you. 

Because most men are not motherfucking trying to get you in bed.

Why do you think you’re so fucking homophobic? Is it because you think most gay men would want you in bed?

Why is it that somehow, that’s logical, but it’s not logical for me to say “motherfucker, do not touch my body when I do not want to be touched. I will not smile at your smarmy, bed-getting compliments.”

Dude, the gay man was just SITTING NEXT TO YOU and you motherfucking freaked. out. 

basically, what I am trying to say:

Unless you are the target of a specific type of bigotry, there is no fucking way you can be an accurate judge re: the accuracy of said bigotry committed by a social demographic.

Because your sample size is just motherfucking small as fuck. 

Not to mention they’re probably leaving out all the microaggressions they’ve perpetrated  stereotypes proliferated, or the fact that they don’t even know any Black people at all. Add in what Whites refuse to recognize, don’t recognize as racism and you’ve got a huge problem.

“Not Racist” and “Anti-Racist” are not default, especially if you’ve never even begun the process of recognizing and unlearning shit.

The end.

"

white women do not face the phenomenon of exotification, which is something I’ve faced since I was a little girl and it was used as a tool to justify the sexual assaults I would later face in life. white women are never going to be branded sluts and whores from birth. and guess what? they always have the chance to claim that shit and feel empowered.

yes white women are raped, abused, murdered, all of those things. they face rape culture, misogyny, and all of that shit. but that doesn’t change the fact that they are WHITE and that effects their “deprivileged” position as a woman. If we ignore race, we are erasing millions of women of color in the same stroke.

white women are never going to know what it is like to be dehumanized since the day they are born. white women are never going to know what it is like to be called a slut when they are six years old. white women are never going to know what it is like to be branded a sexual deviant the moment they grow their breasts. white women are never denied their virginity.

how often do you hear about white mothers being given twenty years in jail for firing a WARNING SHOT for help as she was being attacked by her abuser?

"

cyberterrorist (via hipstermarxist)

(via karnythia)

"Women read comics. Anyone at all engaged in social media knows this. Women read comics and are a driving force behind fandom. I think I could call them the driving force behind fandom and put up a convincing argument. Just think about it: what fandoms have driven America crazy in the last decade? Could anyone dissuade me from saying that they were Harry Potter, Twilight and the Hunger Games? “Avatar” may have put butts in theater seats, but you don’t hear about it… ever. No one is immersed in the world of “Avatar” except James Cameron and people who enjoy wearing Na’vi Zentai suits. “The Avengers” was pretty darn huge and, if Tumblr is any indication, a whopping portion of the people driving that fandom online do not possess a Y chromosome. Women engage in fandom to levels that men do not. When women get behind something, their sheer numbers and passion force it into the mainstream. That’s why you can name the actor who plays that werewolf kid in “Twilight” and probably sing at least the chorus to one Justin Bieber song. What do tween boys like? I have no clue. Sports? Probably sports."

Brett White, Comic Book Resources (via wandrinparakeet)

Sorry for not exercising my queue more, but y’all are posting some awesome stuff right now and I need it.
Like, now.

(via note-a-bear)

It’s true, most online fandoms are dominated, driven, crafted and directed by women and have been for as long as I’ve been participated online. Women rock.

(via everythingbutharleyquinn)

(via talesofthestarshipregeneration)

How revolutionary

sugah-waatah:

Jessica Valenti in her cracker glory—a white woman decide she wants to criticise a Black woman because we don’t get thrown under the bus enough. She wants to use a Black woman (Mrs Michelle Obama) as a means for her success.

Of course the fucker criticises a Black woman without putting in context Black women aren’t seen a fit to be parents but many of us we fit enough to raise white children. Black mothers are seen as delinquent and our mothering skills are only ever brought up when the world wants blame Black mothers for some ill of the world.

white feminist only giving a fuck about Black women when you want to use us for your white feminist agenda

white feminist only giving a fuck about Black women when you want to criticise us as women

white feminist only remembering some women are Black when you want to put us on stage as a critique of women

You want to tell us we’re being a woman the wrong fucking way because it gets in the way  of your manic pixie white girls delusions and white feminist ~radical~ actions 

Because we dared to use our agency to do something and live our lives differently to you

When you dismiss and deny my concerns as a woman, all you’re saying is i’m not a woman. I’m not human enough for being a woman. I’m not white like you so how can I be a woman

I’m only fit for critique and consumption. We’re things for you to use

How fucking revolutionary, the likes of trash like Jessie Valenti wants police what another woman wants to be proud of

Jaclyn Friedman using Beyonce’s then unborn child as a means for her fame

You lot are fucking shameless. 

SHAMELESS!

How revolutionary that a white woman wants to use the same tired old tools to criticise Black women. The same tired old tools constructed on the dead brown bodies of Black women and white women being enthusiastic allies in forming these same stereotypes and agents in the death and abuse of Black women. Do you really think it was only white men that built white supremacy?

Most white women have no problem abusing their status of being fragile creatures to shut WOC down. And how this is so very effective against Black women

If someone wants to be proud of being a mother, who the fuck are you to police our that? You want to criticise a Black mother for being proud of mothering in a world that deems us unfit to be a mothers. How very revolutionary of you. Look at you empowering all women, white feminist. Look at you keeping the dialogue around women squarely on the stories of middle class white women that will probably hire brown nannies

Shaming those that want to be and that are proud of being a mothers because it doesn’t into what YOU see as revolutionary…

Continue making period art and making knitting gangs or what ever the fuck is trendy for white feminist. 

(via womanistgamergirl)

"Patriarchy isn’t some vague intellectual conceit invented by radical feminists to pass the time in between trips to the Birkenstock store. It’s an actual humanitarian crisis, and it has actual consequences, even for you, even if you say it doesn’t."

Twisty Faster (via femalestruggle)

(Source: blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com, via discosherpa)

iamabutchsolo:

I keep having discussions about Disney films and how racist many of the classics are, but the subject that I most fall upon is the 1953 version of Peter Pan, which holds an absurd breadth of racial stereotypes that there are musical numbers and plot sequences directly the product of such racial stereotypes of Native Americans. Certainly, the film’s portrayal undoubtedly permeated into the pretend games of children and their perception of how Native Americans behaved - I know this movie influenced me to wear feathers in my hair, pretend to do Indian tribal dances, and say “how” over and over.
The defense I hear most often from people is that films like Peter Pan “were not racist at the time they were made.”
What they really mean is that white people didn’t think it was racist at the time they were made. The film is just as racist then just as it is now. The fact that people can say movies like Peter Pan were “products of their time” negate that actual Native Americans have been vocal about their objections to the homogenization and stereotypical portrayal of their cultures and their race for literally centuries, but white people just didn’t listen to them. The constant apologism that something “wasn’t racist back then” implies that it is white society that deems what is racist, rather than the people of color directly affected and portrayed. Again, if it is racist now, it was racist then.
Also, children buy into these stereotypes, but children didn’t make this film; grown men did. It was a grown man who wrote the original Peter Pan story and its stereotypical portrayals of Natives. People talk about white creators back then as if they were little kids who didn’t know better. We shouldn’t give them an easy reprieve because a bunch of grown men “didn’t know better” to consider that Native Americans were people and not caricatures. If you like Peter Pan, you can like it, but we shouldn’t downplay its racism nor make excuses.

iamabutchsolo:

I keep having discussions about Disney films and how racist many of the classics are, but the subject that I most fall upon is the 1953 version of Peter Pan, which holds an absurd breadth of racial stereotypes that there are musical numbers and plot sequences directly the product of such racial stereotypes of Native Americans. Certainly, the film’s portrayal undoubtedly permeated into the pretend games of children and their perception of how Native Americans behaved - I know this movie influenced me to wear feathers in my hair, pretend to do Indian tribal dances, and say “how” over and over.

The defense I hear most often from people is that films like Peter Pan “were not racist at the time they were made.”

What they really mean is that white people didn’t think it was racist at the time they were made. The film is just as racist then just as it is now. The fact that people can say movies like Peter Pan were “products of their time” negate that actual Native Americans have been vocal about their objections to the homogenization and stereotypical portrayal of their cultures and their race for literally centuries, but white people just didn’t listen to them. The constant apologism that something “wasn’t racist back then” implies that it is white society that deems what is racist, rather than the people of color directly affected and portrayed. Again, if it is racist now, it was racist then.

Also, children buy into these stereotypes, but children didn’t make this film; grown men did. It was a grown man who wrote the original Peter Pan story and its stereotypical portrayals of Natives. People talk about white creators back then as if they were little kids who didn’t know better. We shouldn’t give them an easy reprieve because a bunch of grown men “didn’t know better” to consider that Native Americans were people and not caricatures. If you like Peter Pan, you can like it, but we shouldn’t downplay its racism nor make excuses.

(Source: daughterofmulan, via casual-isms)

An Open Letter To Straight, White, Christian Men

stfusexists:

Dear Straight, White, Christian Men,

It has recently come to my attention that some of you may seem to think that some portion of your identity is under attack, be it by the “lame stream media,” the liberals, the secularists, the gub’ment, or the ghost of Ted Kennedy.

I’m here to assure you that it is, in fact, not.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, you seem to be confusing “war” with “not getting everything you want all the time.” Because, you see, even though you are represented incredibly disproportionately in positions of power, thereare other people in this world who are different than you. And sometimes, those people deserve to have some attention paid to their wants, needs, and even rights. I know, I know, that’s scary. But don’t worry! You still hold the lions share of the power, and that’ll be the case for some time.

And Christians, don’t worry. Your religion is safe. I mean sure, some people think that its not okay for you to tell others what to do based on your religious views, but you’re still well over-represented in Congress, and there have been a record number of laws proposed and passed that implant your religious beliefs firmly in the uterus of every American woman. As an atheist that is about to be living in a state that says I can’t hold public office because of my religious beliefs, I have a hard time taking someone in the religious majority seriously who complains about religious persecution. That’s not religious persecution. I pinky promise.

Read More

jakigriot:

Now explain MRA (Men Rights Assholery) to me again, Mr. Privilege?

jakigriot:

Now explain MRA (Men Rights Assholery) to me again, Mr. Privilege?

(via kashbran)

minecanary:

48 percent of movies surveyed fail the Bechdel Test, meaning no two named women characters talk to each other about anything other than a man

The Bechdel Test, sometimes called the Mo Movie Measure or Bechdel Rule is a simple test which names the following three criteria:
(1) it has to have at least two women in it, who
(2) who talk to each other, about
(3) something besides a man.
The test was popularized by Alison Bechdel’s comic Dykes to Watch Out For, in a 1985 strip called The Rule.

minecanary:

48 percent of movies surveyed fail the Bechdel Test, meaning no two named women characters talk to each other about anything other than a man

The Bechdel Test, sometimes called the Mo Movie Measure or Bechdel Rule is a simple test which names the following three criteria:

(1) it has to have at least two women in it, who

(2) who talk to each other, about

(3) something besides a man.

The test was popularized by Alison Bechdel’s comic Dykes to Watch Out For, in a 1985 strip called The Rule.

Why Guys Really Hate Being Called "Creepy"

kathleenthearsonist:

At the heart of the ‘anti-creep shaming campaign’ is a concerted effort to discourage women from relying on their instincts to protect themselves from harm. Laying aside its likely etymology, calling a dude an ‘asshole’ is a way of labeling him a jerk. Plenty of people can be jerks without being predatory. On the other hand, calling a dude ‘creepy’ labels him as a potential threat; a creep may not be imminently violent, but there’s almost always a sense that he shows consistent disregard for a woman’s physical or psychological space. This is why, as Wakeman wrote, ‘it’s a really freaking dangerous idea to twist a woman’s open, honest communication about her boundaries/expectations into ‘creep shaming’ that victimizes men.’

(via discosherpa)

"

Holley Mangold is a 22-year-old American Olympian. She’s our country’s best hope of winning a medal in her field — a sport the U.S. has not achieved any Olympic success in since 2000. She’s a powerful athlete whose achievement is even more impressive when you consider that she’s only been at for a few years.

But despite her acknowledgment that “When you’ve got a body like mine, you’ve got to get used to attention,” you don’t see Mangold in sexy magazine spreads that provocatively flaunt naked forms. There are no worshipful Bleacher Report features devoted to ranking her hotness. Instead, Holley Mangold, a woman who can do things with her body that few women – or men – can accomplish, gets to be the butt of a joke. On Saturday, Conan O’Brien snarked on Twitter that “I predict 350 lb. weight lifter Holley Mangold will bring home the gold and 4 guys against their will.” It was retweeted over 2,000 times. Poorly done, there, Coco.

[…] Conan O’Brien’s flippant depiction of her as some marauding she-beast who has to drag off unwilling males is so shabby and dumb and crass. You’d expect more from the guy who famously said, “Work hard and be kind.” But Mangold handled the dis deftly (if not well-spelled), replying, “I like your prediction Conan I like it a lot … just wondering if your one of the guys #dontactlikeyournotimpressed.” Holley Mangold, I love you.

"

Mary Elizabeth Williams, “Holley Mangold makes Conan Look Small

Way to be an asshole, Conan. 

(via saturniinae)

(via little-sword-deactivated2013040)

"What is really being sold in a pornographic film? It’s a conception of sexuality that Dworkin identified— it is not just sex on film. It is sex presented in the context of domination and subordination. Pornography does not just eroticize or sexualize male domination over women. It eroticizes racism. It eroticizes every power dynamic that you can imagine. Think of any power dynamic that you know where there is a hierarchy. I can guarantee you that there is a pornographic film that eroticizes that dynamic."

Robert Jensen (via blinko)

male/female, white/poc, employer/employee, parent/child, etc…it is a sick sick industry. 

i haven’t seen any sex-positive feminists defending racism as a valid “kink” yet (funny), but there’s still time.

(via discosherpa)

edit: i HAVE NOW. nazi kink, for real.

and i read a good argument for the concept of “full-time” “slavery/ownership” in BDSM being inherently racist.

(via discosherpa)

(via discosherpa)