GIRL GAME HOW??? CONTROLLER NO VAGINA FIT!!!

zellas:

Him: *to his GF* oh look at her necklace *points at my Creeper necklace*
Me: Yeah, I love it, you can get them in Game for about 15 quid…
Him: *total change in attitude* Do you even PLAY computer games?!
Me: OMG who even ASKS that?!?!
Him: Welll…yaknow
Me: *walks away*

"What I say to women of color and other young feminists or womanists is this: there is no Women’s Movement, capital W, capital M. There are women’s movements, plural. And those movements are alive and well in communities of color. Many of the strongest voices in our communities of color are women. We carry our communities on our backs. With or without the label, we’re there."

Helen Xia, feminist, Asian American, racial justice advocate. all around badass (via rebj)

(Source: msmagazine.com, via liberationista-deactivated20130)

How black women are portrayed in the media

droppingthefbomb:

“The Mummy”- The faithful, obedient, domestic servant. This image was created to justify the economic exploitation of house slaves and served to represent the ideal relationship between the black women and the majority culture.

“The Hoochie” - The jezebel or whore, who is sexually promiscuous and immoral due to the hypersexualisation of black women’s skin colour. This as a method of justifying the horrific and sickening sexual terrorism that black women suffer from. These images allowed for the belief that black women could not be raped because they always “wanted it” and subsequently permitted the perpetrators of these crimes against black women to escape legal or social sanctions. This image has persisted and evolved into the modern-day jezebel image, also identified as “hoochies,” “freaks,” “hoodrats,” which are ever-present in hip-hop music videos projected almost constantly on television stations such as BET.

“The Angry Black Woman”- Depicted as hostile, nagging, overly aggressive and masculinised. This image is fuelled by black women’s economic and social status, which forced them to work alongside their male counterparts and subsequently prevented them from fitting the standard of femininity applied to upper-class white women. This image is also closely related to failed mammy, which was created to denote the role and responsibility of the black woman in the social and economic failure of black families. That is, the overly aggressive, unfeminine black women, rather than discriminatory social policies and economic inequalities, emasculated her male partner, who left or refused to marry her, thus leaving her as well as his children to flounder in poverty. These images have allowed society to ignore the past and contemporary social realities of the overwhelming amount of demands placed on black women, and the strength needed to provide for their families alone in a racist, sexist, and classist society.

"The Magical Femme-Negro"

A subset of Angry Black Woman, she is comfortable being the only black character ever presented and doesn’t mind if her character is never developed, so long as she can help her (White!) friends kick boyfriends to the curb etc. etc. etc.

"The Background Character"

—-

(Source: muse.jhu.edu, via droppingthefbomb-deactivated201)

"Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him."

Sojourner Truth (via wearethedescendantsofstars)

(Source: daughterofzami, via discosherpa)

"A Letter from Huey Newton...about the Women’s Liberation and Gay Liberation Movements"

darkjez:

I felt this text needed to be featured in it’s entirety. Please read! I know it’s long but do it or me? Pwease? …It’s really touching a deep place in my heart. 
     **Emphasis & Italicization Mine

HUEY P. NEWTON—

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say “whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppressed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner