anonymous asked: I think Ann Coulter has stupid hair. And ideas. But also hair.
Yeah, but mainly, let’s stop judging women, even evil, horrible, 100% asshole racists like Ann Coulter, in terms of their looks.
really sick of gun control arguments focusing on “crazies” in a way that dehumanises people with mental illnesses. can we instead talk about the many “sane”, “rational” people who are obsessed with violence and hatred but treated as voices of reason by the media, and the many, many people inspired by them who are far more common perpetrators of gun violence
tumblr you suck
why are you fucking with people who use MIssing E like this, fucking up the functionality of it when you know dude is just gonna fix it again, and we’re gonna update it again, and we’re gonna use that script that makes your little pop-up NOT pop up (guys i never ever see it anymore it’s awesome) and keep right on using Missing E?
why don’t you just fucking talk to the guy and get the Missing E features added to the damn site because clearly that is what your users want
why don’t you cut the shit
First off, I want to talk about an abortion ban that leaves exceptions in place only for instances of rape, incest or life of the mother. The first thing that I want to say about this policy is this: this is a pro-choice position. The proponents can call it whatever the hell they want, but the bottom line is that this position is pro-choice. A person who takes this position is acknowledging that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman. Herself. The rape/incest exception people – their position is that they get to decide if someone else’s (i.e., some other woman’s) reason is good enough. I am pro-her-choice. They are pro-their-choice.
In addition, however, to the extraordinary presumption and paternalism inherent in the position that you – whoever you are – should have more control than the pregnant woman over her reproductive future, is the absolutely, unequivocally impossible enforcement situation that this policy would create. So, we criminalize abortion but leave in place exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. As a policy matter, what does this mean?
Well, it involves me. That is pretty much a certainty, because I am a prosecutor and I prosecute people accused of crimes. So if we find ourselves in a situation where women who get abortions that don’t fall under one of those exceptions have committed a crime, then I’m going to be the one making the decisions about what happens next. That’s my job. And I have to say, I am more than a little bit uncomfortable about being legally mandated to prosecute other women because they have terminated a pregnancy when it is a bunch of non-pregnant people – many of whom are men who can’t even become pregnant – who don’t think her reason was “good enough” to be “legal”.
But, please, enlighten me. How do I decide if prosecution is warranted? And, by the way, how does a woman who qualifies for one of these exceptions go about availing herself of the exception? Are we going to take the pregnant woman’s word for it that she was raped (somehow I suspect that the answer to this question will be “no”)? Is there going to be a form that she has to fill out? Will she be placed under oath? Will there be post-abortion investigations by the police to ensure that she was truthful when she said that she was raped? If we aren’t going to just take her word for it, what will be the mechanism for fact finding we will use?
Will there be some sort of hearing, in a public courtroom, before a judge, where a woman is required to prove that she was raped? How much humiliation will we require the woman to endure during this hearing? Will her attire at the time of the “rape” be relevant? How about her reputation for chastity? Will Rule 412 apply? Will she be subject to cross-examination? Will she have the right to counsel, court appointed if she cannot afford to her own lawyer? Who will represent the interests of the state/fetus? Will it be someone like me, with a similar job title? What will the burden of proof be for the hearing? How will we expedite the hearing so that the abortion can occur within the appropriate time frame, given that there is a window of opportunity that cannot be missed? Will there be an appeal process? Has ANYONE who wants to criminalize abortion while leaving open some exceptions spent even seven seconds considering any of these questions?
Really, Hugo? Yes, women on the internet wanting to make people aware of your long and disgusting (and continuing to this day) history of abuse and condescension toward women is so threatening. Much more than say, a man who tried to murder an ex and has slept with multiple students and yet is still allowed to teach women’s studies classes.
OH FUCKING HELL NO
Schwyzer you piece of shit, you tried to KILL SOMEONE. You know what a real threat is because you’re a rapist and attempted murderer, but look at you, you’re drawing attention to women who want to push rapists and attempted murderers out of spaces where they come in contact with other women, and you’re implying THEY’RE the real danger? Jesus Christ.
This reminds me of when he wrote a column talking shit about a female colleague of his who couldn’t get over his ~pre-sobriety past~ and had the nerve to warn people who didn’t know that he is a creepy, entitled predator. It’s like, oh well what do you want from me, I “acknowledged” my “past” in really vague uncertain terms, so why do you have to keep bringing it up?
Like it really fucking bothers me is that anytime a woman behaves in a way he doesn’t like, or he gets a boner, he writes a FUCKING COLUMN about it. And people legitimise this shit by publishing it. Like, literally everything he writes is about how mean women are for either not giving him a free pass or not having sex with him exactly the way he wants.
I hate to talk about this like I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, but for the sake of argument: if you are a misogynist in recovery, and you respect women now, the way you show respect is by leaving women who don’t like you the fuck alone. And I think you can tell that these women don’t like you.
You don’t communicate with them, quote them on your blog, write whiny, smirky essays about them, or antagonize them at all. They get to decide that they can’t abide your presence. They get to decide that your work is not feminist. They get to decide you’re a horrible person. They get to decide that you are not welcome. You don’t get to complain about that. You don’t even get to “start a conversation” with these women who hate the sight of you and fear men like you. That is not amends. That is not respect. That is abusive behavior.
Can you imagine? What would the equivalent be, some quote-unquote recovering violent alcoholic trolling Al-Anon gatherings for people who are too hard on other violent alcoholics, and writing long weepy essays about how it felt to pummel your wife and children in a drunken fury, and what it really means and how much it hurts to be a violent alcoholic, and then going on the offensive when people try to shut you out? And then taking carefully-calibrated virtual potshots at the abuse survivors who just refuse to like or respect you or quietly tolerate your presence?
Recovery is not a club to beat your detractors with. It is not an argument. You don’t get to negotiate forgiveness, and you don’t get to take issue with women who look at what you’ve done and write you off.
Male privilege is the sexualization of Breast Cancer awareness.
it reminds me of what Randall Munroe said:
“The frustrating thing about the “Save the Boobies” campaign and similar things (like the “Booberday” meme going around G+) is that they get it exactly backward. Often, the point of breast cancer treatment is to destroy some or all of the boobies in order to save the woman.
Saying that we should work to cure this disease because it threatens breasts is really upsetting. For starters, it suggests that women are worth saving because they’re attached to breasts, rather than the other way around. But worse, it tells any woman who’s had a mastectomy to try to save her life that she’s lost the thing that made people care about her survival. What a punch in the stomach.”
Bless this post
This exemplifies everything I hate about the pinkification of breast cancer, and also, honestly, the Komen foundation.
The campaign is also gender essentialist. It seems to maintain that in order to get breast cancer, one must have what is stereotypically seen as breasts. That is simply untrue.
It sexualises a disease by privileging what apparently cis, straight, men see, through privileged glasses, what is important about breast cancer. The sexual appeal of keeping your breasts intact. Breasts are not the most important part of the breast cancer awareness movement (and, let’s be real, I am tired of “awareness” campaigns for things like this. I am pretty sure we are all aware that breast cancer exists. Where is the fight to actually further research or aid survivors and patients?), rather, the life that is being threatened is.
1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.
Thanks to my friend Travis for this helpful breakdown of where at least $5 million of Chick-fil-A profits have gone. Note that some of this money went directly to promoting the death penalty for gay people in Uganda.
In case you’re wondering why people are boycotting Chick-Fil-A.
“Caster Semenya was a world champion - then she was sidelined for 11 months of invasive gender testing because she was too fast and too muscular. She’s back in time for the 2012 Olympics, but now there’s a new rule targeting women who are “too good” at sport to be “real” women.
This rule violates everything the Olympics are about. Seeing people achieve the very fastest, highest, strongest limits of their sport is an inspiration for tens of millions of people globally - to work hard and love what you do. This new rule tells every kid watching the Olympics that you don’t just have to work hard, you have to look “right”.
With only a few days before the Olympics start, with all eyes turning to London, we have to show the International Olympic Committee that not even they have the right to tell someone that who they are is wrong - that there is no such thing as “playing like a girl”.”
R.I.P to the approximately 11 million Jews, Slavs, ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs, Romany gypsies, disabled people, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and political and religious dissenters who were murdered in the Holocaust.
Let us never forget the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and let us hope that humanity never reaches that low again.
Not to be a Debbie Downer on a downer subject, but memory is wholly insufficient.
It is not enough to remember. Remembrance is essential; it’s the lifeblood of the Jewish people, for example, to repeat our history. But it doesn’t stop there, it can’t stop there, and if we’re going to use this day to remember the Holocaust as I believe we should we should also not delude ourselves on this count: humanity has reached that low since, and it will reach it again. Genocide keeps going despite the fact that it has been a basic tenant of the Holocaust memorial project to say such a thing will never happen again. But Never Again is utter bullshit. Today isn’t just a day for remembering; memory is insufficient. Memory needs to become a tool, it has to become a practice and a project to say, “This is something that happened, this is a genocide that happened and we have a name for that, we have institutions that should deal with it but don’t, and I am going to take five minutes out of my day to Wikipedia the information I’m missing.” There’s a notion of the Holocaust as something that cannot be repeated; it can be. It has been. And we have a responsibility to recognize it when we see it, to remember how we have failed, and ensure we don’t do that again. That’s our Never Again. Never again to close our eyes.
So here’s what I want you to remember today:
- Victimization is exhausting. I won’t do it anymore. I as a Jewish person need people to remember the Holocaust because the entire history of my people is one of repeated victimization with this one very, very loud exclamation point. But do not think the Holocaust was an aberration in our history. And do not think for a second that we don’t simply assume it will happen again. I can’t speak for all the Jews in the land, but I sure as hell live my life under the assumption that history repeats itself. It’s rarely proven otherwise. And I won’t do it anymore.
- Romani persecution is absolutely an ongoing problem. Just, what was it, last year, France and Germany deported their Romani populations to Eastern Europe. Sound familiar? It should. Romani remain in danger of persecution, forced evictions and sterilization, and death. (1, 2, 3, among many others)
- I would like to think the oppression of people with disabilities and LGBTQ folks is self evident but have some links anyway
- There have been, as far as I know and that knowledge is limited, six recognized genocides since the Holocaust: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo. Genocidal scholars seem to not have come to a decision regarding Darfur; popular opinion holds that it was. I’m not an expert on the war and can’t give you an opinion on the subject. There are also several more claims to genocide that scholars have yet to settle on.
Never Again is bullshit until someone starts to make sure it never happens again. Yes, remember. But do not stop at the remembering. This history is not as long ago as people would like for it to be, and memory is a passive act. It is not merely a matter of recalling the victims or survivors; it is a matter of the every day persecution and repeated victimization of and violence against groups around the world. Remember, yes, and some of us will grieve, but we won’t all be grieving the same things. Some of us feel the weight of our ancestors on our backs; some groups get recognized for that and far more don’t. And I don’t want this argument to turn around into getting angry at Jews as this subject can often err toward; there is space in this world for everyone to be remembered. The problem is that not everyone is, and that is, in a word, mortifying.
Many people don’t know the way this history grabs at your mind in the middle of the night, let alone recognize the way that history is in fact not history but a daily fact of life for millions of people (Native Americans in the United States come to mind). Many people are just left with remembering the chapters (or at times sentences) in their history books. They are left with that distance between now and the history we want to leave behind as the most shameful moment in human history, when in truth it is merely one of many horrifyingly shameful moments in human history. The Holocaust haunts us because we don’t understand how it could happen. We don’t understand how the world could bear witness and do so little for so long. Yet, these crimes continue to happen, and they happened long before the Holocaust as well. We cannot stop at remembering. We need to learn. We need to understand. We need to mourn. We need to mourn for the people whose families are not ours and for the graves of people we will never visit or see museums for. We need to act. We need to have Never Again sewn into our clothes so we wake up every day and know what it is we should be remembering.
“The Way It Was”: Abortion in the US before Roe v. Wade.
I’m just going to post this as often as possible until pro-lifers read it: abortion rates are the same everywhere, whether abortion is legal or not. 70,000 pregnant people die every year from unsafe abortions, and 5 million more are permanently injured or mutilated by them. KEEP IT LEGAL. KEEP IT SAFE. KEEP IT ACCESSIBLE.
When I started making those weird voices, a lot of people told me how whack it was, ‘What the fuck are you doing?’ they’d say. ‘Why do you sound like that? That doesn’t sound sexy to me.’ And then I started saying, ‘Oh, that’s not sexy to you? Good. I’m going to do it more. Maybe I don’t want to be sexy for you today.‘
Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.