the-real-goddamazon

thegoddamazon:

queennubian:

so-sunderbelly:

thatdorkyguy:

oppressedbrowngirlsdoingthings:

“Nobody has the right to turn out and tell me that I can’t wear a certain outfit, that I can’t go out to a certain place because I would be safer, or because a man looks at me…”

I love Priyanka Chopra.

Why are you walking about naked in the first place? That just seems rather unsuitable regardless of gender.

it doesn’t matter if she’s naked. that shouldn’t even be a question.

tw:rape

The bolded is a primary example of rape culture.

Why the fuck does it matter? That’s a moot point, dumbass. Her point is even if she decides to walk outside bare-assed naked as the day she was born, that gives no one the right to touch her body without her express permission. That gives no one the right to objectify her. And most of all, it gives no one the right to VIOLATE HER IN THE WORST FUCKING WAY.

Why should we be held accountable for someone else’s sickness? It’s not our fault we were raped, it’s their fucking fault for raping. Why would excuse a rapist simply because his/her victim was dressed a certain way, or happened to be alone? Any excuse for the offending party is just as bad as being the offending party.

We live in a society that blames women for being naked under their clothes if they’re raped. That’s how much rapists & their apologists have twisted reality.

tithenai

PSA: Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical

fozmeadows:

Victorian Women SmokingImage taken from tumblr.

Recently, SFF author Tansy Rayner Roberts wrote an excellent post debunking the idea that women did nothing interesting or useful throughout history, and that trying to write fictional stories based on this premise of feminine insignificance is therefore both inaccurate and offensive. To quote:

“History is not a long series of centuries in which men did all the interesting/important things and women stayed home and twiddled their thumbs in between pushing out babies, making soup and dying in childbirth.

History is actually a long series of centuries of men writing down what they thought was important and interesting, and FORGETTING TO WRITE ABOUT WOMEN. It’s also a long series of centuries of women’s work and women’s writing being actively denigrated by men. Writings were destroyed, contributions were downplayed, and women were actively oppressed against, absolutely.

But the forgetting part is vitally important. Most historians and other writers of what we now consider “primary sources” simply didn’t think about women and their contribution to society. They took it for granted, except when that contribution or its lack directly affected men.

This does not in any way mean that the female contribution to society was in fact less interesting or important, or complicated, simply that history—the process of writing down and preserving of the facts, not the facts/events themselves—was looking the other way.”

The relevance of this statement to the creation of SFF stories cannot be understated. Time and again, we see fans and creators alike defending the primacy of homogeneous – which is to say, overwhelmingly white, straight and male – stories on the grounds that anything else would be intrinsically unrealistic. Contrary to how it might seem at first blush, this is not a wholly ironic complaint: as I’ve recently had cause to explain elsewhere, the plausibility of SFF stories is derived in large part from their ability to make the impossible feel realistic. A fictional city might be powered by magic and the dreams of dead gods, but it still has to read like a viable human space and be populated by viable human characters. In that sense, it’s arguable that SFF stories actually place a greater primacy on realism than straight fiction, because they have to work harder to compensate for the inclusion of obvious falsehoods. Which is why there’s such an integral relationship between history and fantasy: our knowledge of the former frequently underpins our acceptance of the latter. Once upon a time, we know, there really were knights and castles and quests, and maps whose blank spaces warned of dragons and magic. That being so, a medieval fantasy novel only needs to convince us that the old myths were true; that wizards and witches existed, and that monsters really did populate the wilds. Everything else that’s dissonant with modern reality – the clothes, the customs, the social structure – must therefore constitute a species of historical accuracy, albeit one that’s liberally seasoned with poetic license, because that vague, historical blueprint is what we already have in our heads.

But what happens when our perception of historical accuracy is entirely at odds with real historical accuracy? What happens when we mistake our own limited understanding of culture – or even our personal biases – for universal truths? What happens, in other words, when we’re jerked out of a story, not because the fantastic elements don’t make sense, but because the social/political elements strike us as being implausible on the grounds of unfamiliarity?

The answer tends to be as ugly as it is revealing: that it’s impossible for black, female pirates to exist anywhere, thatpixies and shapeshifters are inherently more plausible as a concept than female action heroes who don’t get raped, and that fairy tale characters as diverse as Mulan, Snow White and Captain Hook can all live together in the modern world regardless of history and canon, but a black Lancelot in the same setting is grossly unrealistic. On such occasions, the recent observation of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Junot Diaz that “Motherfuckers will read a book that’s 1/3rd elvish, but put two sentences in Spanish and they (white people) think we’re taking over” is bitingly, lamentably accurate. And it’s all thanks to a potent blend of prejudice and ignorance: prejudice here meaning the conviction that deliberately including POC, female and/or LGBTQ characters can only ever be a political action (and therefore an inherently suspicious one), and ignorance here meaning the conviction that the historical pervasiveness of sexism, racism and homophobia must necessarily mean that any character shown to surpass these limitations is inherently unrealistic.

Let’s start with the latter claim, shall we?

Because as Roberts rightly points out, there’s a significant difference between history as written and history as happened, with a further dissonance between both those states and history as it’s popularly perceived. For instance: female pirates – and, indeed, female pirates of colour – are very much an historical reality. The formidable Ching Shih, a former prostitute, commanded more than 1800 ships and 80,000 pirates, took on the British empire and was successful enough to eventually retire. There were female Muslim pirates and female Irish pirates – female pirates, in fact, from any number of places, times and backgrounds. But because their existence isn’t routinely taught or acknowledged, we assume them to be impossible. The history of women in the sciences is plagued by similar misconceptions, their vital contributions belittled, forgotten and otherwise elided for so many years that even now, the majority of them continue to be overlooked. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie are far from being exceptions to the rule: Cecilia Payne-GaposchkinLeise Meitner and Emmy Noether all contributed greatly to our understanding of science, as did countless others. And in the modern day, young female scientists abound despite the ongoing belief in their rarity: nineteen-year-old Aisha Mustafa has patented a new propulsion system for spacecraft, while a young group of Nigerian schoolgirls recently invented a urine-powered generator. Even the world’s first chemist was a woman.

And nor is female achievement restricted to the sciences. Heloise d’Argenteuil was accounted one of the brightest intellectuals of her day; Bessie Coleman was both the first black female flyer and the first African American to hold an international pilot’s licence; Nellie Bly was a famed investigative journalist, not only travelling around the world solo in record time (in which adventure she raced against and beat another female reporter, Elizabeth Bisland), but uncovering the deplorable treatment of inmates at Blackwell Asylum by going undercover as a patient. Sarah Josephine Baker was a famous physician known for tracking down Typhoid Mary, tirelessly fighting poverty and, as a consequence, drastically improving newborn care. And in the modern day, there’s no shortage of female icons out fighting racism, sexism, homophobia and injustice despite the limitations society wants to impose on them: journalistMarie Colvin, who died this year reporting on the Syrian uprising; Burmese politician and activist Aung San Suu Kyi, who spent some 15 years as a political prisoner; fifteen-year-old Malala Yousafzai, who survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban for her advocacy of female education; and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakul Karman, who jointly won last year’s Nobel Peace Prize for their work in support of women’s rights.

But what about historical women in positions of leadership – warriors, politicians, powerbrokers? Where do they fit in?  The ancient world provides any number of well-known examples – Agrippina the YoungerCleopatraBoudica,Queen Bilquis of ShebaNefertiti – but they, too, are far from being unusual: alongside the myriad female soldiersthroughout history who disguised themselves as men stand the Dahomey Amazons, the Soviet Night Witches, thefemale cowboys of the American west and the modern Asgarda of Ukraine; the Empress Dowager CixiQueen Elizabeth I and Ka’iulani all ruled despite opposition, while a wealth of African queens, female rulers and rebels have had their histories virtually expunged from common knowledge. At just twenty years old, Juana Galan successfully lead the women of her village against Napoleon’s troops, an action which ultimately caused the French to abandon her home province of La Mancha. Women played a major part in the Mexican revolution, too, much like modern women across Africa and the Middle East, while the Irish revolutionary, suffragette and politician Constance Markievicz, when asked to provide other women with fashion advice, famously replied that they should “Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank, and buy a revolver.” More recently still, in WWII, New Zealander Nancy Wake served as a leading French resistance fighter: known to the Gestapo as the White Mouse, she once killed an SS sentry with her bare hands and took command of a maquis unit when their male commander died in battle. Elsewhere during the same conflict, Irena Sendler survived both torture and a Nazi death sentence to smuggle some 2,500 Jewish children safely out of the Warsaw ghetto, for which she was nominated for a Nobel peace prize in 2007.

And what of gender roles and sexual orientation – the various social, romantic and matrimonial mores we so frequently assume to be static, innate and immutable despite the wealth of information across biology and history telling us the opposite? Consider the modern matriarchy of Meghalaya, where power and property descend through matrilineal lines and men are the suffragettes. Consider the longstanding Afghan practice of Bacha Posh, where girl children are raised as boys, or the sworn virgins of Albania – women who live as and are legally considered to be men, provided they remain chaste. Consider the honoured status of Winkte and two-spirit persons in various First Nations cultures, and the historical acceptance of both the Fa’afafine of Samoa and the Hijra of India and South-East Asia. Consider the Biblical relationship described in the Book of Samuel between David and Jonathan of Israel, the inferred romance between Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, and the openly gay emperors of the Han Dynasty - including Emperor Ai of Han, whose relationship with Dong Xian gave rise to the phrase ‘the passion of the cut sleeve’. Consider the poetry of Sappho, the relationship between Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein, the tradition of normative, female-female relationships in Basotho, and the role of the Magnonmaka in Mali – nuptial advisers whose teach women how to embrace and enjoy their sexuality in marriage.

And then there’s the twin, misguided beliefs that Europe was both wholly white and just as racially prejudiced as modern society from antiquity through to the Middle Ages – practically right up until the present day. Never mind that no less than three Arthurian Knights of the Round Table – Sir Palamedes, Sir Safir and Sir Segwarides – are canonically stated to be Middle Eastern, or the fact that people of African descent have been present in Europe since classical times; and not just as slaves or soldiers, but as aristocrats. The network of trade routes known collectively asthe Silk Road that linked Europe with parts Africa, the Middle East, India and Asia were established as early as 100 BC; later, black Africans had a visible, significant, complex presence in Europe during the Renaissance, while much classic Greek and Roman literature was only preserved thanks to the dedication of Arabic scholars during the Abbasid Caliphate, also known as the Islamic Golden Age, whose intellectuals were also responsible for many advances in medicine, science and mathematics subsequently appropriated and claimed as Western innovations. Even in the eighteen and nineteen hundreds, it’s possible to find examples of prominent POC in Europe: Alexandre Dumas, author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, was of Creole descent, as was Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, the famous British composer, while Jamaican nurse Mary Seacole was honoured alongside Florence Nightingale for her work during the Crimean War.

I could go on. As exhaustive as this information might seem, it barely scratches the surface. But as limited an overview as these paragraphs present, they should still be sufficient to make one very simple point: that even in highly prejudicial settings supposedly based on real human societies, trying to to argue that women, POC and/or LGBTQ persons can’t so much as wield even small amounts of power in the narrative, let alone exist as autonomous individuals without straining credulity to the breaking point, is the exact polar opposite of historically accurate writing.

Which leads me back to the issue of prejudice: specifically, to the claim that including such characters in SFF stories, by dint of contradicting the model of straight, white, male homogeneity laid down by Tolkien and taken as gospel ever since, is an inherently political – and therefore suspect – act. To which I say: what on Earth makes you think that the classic SWM default is apolitical? If it can reasonably argued that a character’s gender, race and sexual orientation have political implications, then why should that verdict only apply to characters who differ from both yourself and your expectations? Isn’t the assertion that straight white men are narratively neutral itself a political statement, one which seeks to marginalise as exceptional or abnormal the experiences of every other possible type of person on the planet despite the fact that straight white men are themselves a global minority? And even if a particular character was deliberately written to make a political point, why should that threaten you? Why should it matter that people with different beliefs and backgrounds are using fiction to write inspirational wish-fulfillment characters for themselves, but from whose struggle and empowerment you feel personally estranged? That’s not bad writing, and as we’ve established by now, it’s certainly not bad history – and particularly not when you remember (as so many people seem to forget) that fictional cultures are under no obligation whatsoever to conform to historical mores. It just means that someone has managed to write a successful story that doesn’t consider you to be its primary audience – and if the prospect of not being wholly, overwhelmingly catered to is something you find disturbing, threatening, wrong? Then yeah: I’m going to call you a bigot, and I probably won’t be wrong.

Point being, I’m sick to death of historical accuracy being trotted out as the excuse du jour whenever someone freaks out about the inclusion of a particular type of character in SFF, because the ultimate insincerity behind the claim is so palpable it’s practically a food group. I’m yet to see someone who objects to the supposed historic inaccuracy of, for instance, female cavalry regiments (which – surprise! - is totally a thing) raise similarly vehement objections to any other aspect of historically suspicious worldbuilding, like longbows in the wrong period or medical knowledge being too far advanced for the setting. The reason for this is, I suspect, simple: that most people with sufficient historical knowledge to pick up on issues like nonsensical farming techniques, the anachronistic presence of magnets in ancient settings and corsetry in the wrong era also know about historical diversity, and therefore don’t find its inclusion confronting. Almost uniformly, in fact, it seems as though such complaints of racial and sexual inaccuracy have nothing whatsoever to do with history and everything to do with a foggy, bastardised and ultimately inaccurate species of faux-knowledge gleaned primarily – if not exclusively – from homogeneous SFF, RPG settings, TV shows and Hollywood. And if that’s so, then no historic sensibilities are actually being affronted, because none genuinely exist: instead, it’s just a reflexive way of expressing either conscious or subconscious outrage that someone who isn’t white, straight and/or male is being given the spotlight.

Because ultimately, these are SFF stories: narratives set in realms that don’t and can’t exist. And if you still want to police the prospects of their inhabitants in line with a single, misguided view of both human history and human possibility, then congratulations: you have officially missed the point of inventing new worlds to begin with.

witchsistah

7 Things To STOP Saying To Black Women About Beauty

gradientlair:

1) Stop calling our natural hair ugly.

2) Stop approaching our natural hair with a hierarchy than reinforces colourism.

3) Stop using placement in the natural hair community to bully Black women who may still have relaxed hair or weaves.

4) Stop saying “she’s pretty…for a dark-skinned woman.”

5) Stop saying “she’s pretty…for a big/fat woman.”

6) Stop implying that any biracial women who identify as Black or any light skinned Black women are the only ones that are attractive, and stop acting like any Black woman who deviates from this appearance should be “lucky” to have a man, regardless of how utterly lousy that man might be. Love is not something to be rationed out like a commodity only for those who are closest to appearing White.

7) Stop saying “you’re too pretty to be single.” Attraction to someone has NOTHING to do with THEIR choice to pursue a relationship or not. This is inherently patriarchal and in fact not even a logical thing to say.

Who should stop this? ANYONE who does it (that’s you White and people of colour), INCLUDING other Black men and Black women. Reject White supremacist, Eurocentric and patriarchal thoughts about beauty.

big-wired

big-wired:

karnythia:

bad-dominicana:

Misogynist mens worst nightmare is women who arent sexually available as per their whims or catering to them.

The price for refusing to do that shits steep as fuck. Feminicide and rape rates could tell you that.

but i get a kick out of the ridiculous hulking and shrinking and wilting they do when you can and do

Deny!!! the fuck outta them.

Its unfathomable to em. You can see their shitty dreams bein shattered.

No one exists for my whims? How could it be? What a cruel existence, a man without someone to shit on.

This is my workplace in a nutshell. I won’t say that every guy there is a woman hating scumbag, but enough of them are that the prevailing culture is one of “Well of course they say terrible things to you. You just have to learn how to let those things roll off your back.” Fire isn’t a coping skill right?

Fire? Hell, sounds like I need to send you a frigging flamethrower!

Don’t tempt me. I have the kind of coworkers who think it’s funny to threaten me with violence. One of these days that won’t end well.

blaquerose

blaquerose:

missmisandry:

  • Assistant had worked for James Knight for 10 years
  • Claims she wore tight outfits and was irresistible
  • Assistant Melissa Nelson said she was happily married with no interest in an affair and only wore scrubs
  • Knight’s wife demanded the sacking after finding texts  exchanged between her husband and assistant
  • Decision was made on the advice of Knight’s pastor

An Iowa dentist acted legally in firing a long-time assistant because he - and his wife - viewed the married mother as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 bosses can sack employees they see as an ‘irresistible attraction,’ even if they have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. 

Appearing on CNN Friday night, assistant Melissa Nelson said the decision was deeply unfair.

‘I don’t think this is fair,’ she said from her Iowa home by phone. ‘I don’t think this is right.’

Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, and not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.

But Nelson’s attorney said Iowa’s all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination women see routinely in the workplace.

Nelson insisted she was never interested in Knight romantically, regardless of his own feelings.

‘Absolutely not,’ she said. ‘I’m happily married.’

Since Knight fired her she has worked as a waitress six nights a week. 

While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices. 

Asked if she saw herself as irresistibly attractive, Nelson laughed at the question.

‘I’m just an ordinary girl,’ she said. ‘Just an ordinary mom.’

Also appearing via call-in, her attorney, Paige Fiedler, said it was unlikely they would seek an appeal because of the way the case was filed as only interpreting state law. 

‘These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires,’ Fielder said.  ‘If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.’

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, ‘that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.’

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said.

Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight’s conduct may not have risen to that level and didn’t particularly offend her, Fiedler said.

Knight argued Nelson was fired not because of her gender, but because her continued employment threatened his marriage. A district judge agreed, dismissing the case before trial, and the high court upheld that ruling.

Mansfield noted that Knight had an all-female workforce and Nelson was replaced by a woman.

He said the decision was in line with state and federal court rulings that found workers can be fired for relationships that cause jealousy and tension within a business owner’s family. One such case from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a business owner’s firing of a valued employee who was seen by his wife as a threat to their marriage. In that case, the fired employee had engaged in flirtatious conduct.

Mansfield said allowing Nelson’s lawsuit would stretch the definition of discrimination to allow anyone fired over a relationship to file a claim arguing they would not have been fired but for their gender.

Knight’s attorney, Stuart Cochrane, said the court got it right. The decision clarified that bosses can make decisions showing favoritism to a family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by allowing Knight to honor his wife’s wishes to fire Nelson, he said.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

‘While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman,’ he said. ‘The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage.

‘I don’t view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law.’


So a man finds himself attracted to a woman who shows no interest in him. He makes lewd jokes about her, acts inappropriately towards her. His wife finds out and he gets in trouble with her. Their solution—at the urging of their PASTOR— is to fire the woman in question.

And this is apparently ok.

I can’t even like… fathom how this makes any sense.

And once again a woman is being held responsible for the actions and feelings of a man. This man is taking 0% responsibility for his actions and insists the only way to save his freaking marriage is to fire this woman who isn’t interested in him anyway. 

And the STATE SUPREME COURT AGREES.

Sexism, everybody.

fuck everything.

Yeah, I feel as if this firing was more Knight being upset at being both snubbed AND caught, so he felt the need to flex power in some form or another.

What a douche.

big-wired

big-wired:

karnythia:

calvarok:

karnythia:

calvarok:

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

karnythia:

This is rape culture in action. He was afraid he’d try to have an affair with her so he fired her instead of getting his shit together. And the court (all male) cosigned him blaming her for being in her body & not taking any responsibility for his actions. His wife & his pastor were on board with this shit too. Amazing.

Apparently being ‘Too hot’ can now get you fired

image

I talked about this with someone.  Honestly, it’s not about women being dangerous or even him having an affair.  It’s about temptation and attraction to someone outside of your marriage whom you spend a lot of time with.  The best case scenario would have been if he had tried taking a leave of absence, hiring a surrogate, and getting therapy, but all of those things cost a lot of money.

It’s a crappy situation, but this was the only outcome most people would have gone for.

This isn’t rape culture.

This has nothing to do with the guy thinking he can’t control himself because the woman is too hot or whatever.

It’s him wanting to divorce himself from unhealthy desires.

And yes, it’s easy to disparage him for that.

But how many times have you pushed someone away because you knew it was bad for you to be attracted to them, because you were in a relationship or for other reasons?  Yes, being unable to resist doing this might mean he’s not the best employer, but he can learn and grow.

As I said, the surrogate and therapy would be ideal, but I don’t think it’s totally evil that it turned out the way it did.  It’s muddier water than people give it credit for, and can people please stop making things that don’t have anything to do with the theory of rape culture somehow connect with it?

That is not the issue here.

It really bugs me how people always rephrase something, like if a man had an irrational fear of assaulting a particular woman and got a restraining order, people would say that was rape culture because it’s making it seem like women are asking for assault. (which it’s not.  you just said it is.)

If men are afraid of crossing boundaries, it’s because they’ve been beaten over the head with those boundaries their whole lives.  So much of what is called rape culture is basically ANTI rape culture, but twisted to seem evil.

He’s attracted to her & punishes her for it & you want to claim that’s not rape culture? Farreal? Jesus take the wheel, I can’t drive & shoot at the same time. Gee, losing her livelihood was a way better solution than him manning the fuck up & not sexually harassing her right? How about no, now kindly keep this creep shit rape apologia logic off my posts. 

As I said, this is not about sexual harassment, it’s about the fact that he was attracted to her.  that’s something he couldn’t help.  And if he felt that it was interfering with his marriage, he had 3 choices: quit (which destroys her job) take a leave of absence and work things out (which would cost him money) or fire her.

Of those 3, the 1st is worst for him moneywise, 2nd is the nicest thing to do but also pretty taxing moneywise, and firing her has the least harm to his wallet but is the most dickish of those things.

So yes, the 3rd option is the least pleasant.

But it’s not rape.

And it’s not illegal.

And most human beings would gravitate to it because of the lack of damage to themselves.

rephrase the issue as much as you want.

This is more about greed than anything.

And this is america, greed certainly isn’t against the law.

Your complete inability to use logic & critical thinking skills should be illegal. Sadly you’re probably going to be able to stay this clueless for a long time since listening isn’t a life skill you possess either. He was attracted to her. After 10 years he couldn’t control himself so she’s punished for it? Farreal? You’re part of the problem & yes this is absolutely rape culture. Spend less time defending it & more time shutting the fuck up.

Part of rape culture is the stupid idea that men are just UNABLE to help themselves and that womenare always at fault as they’re supposed to be the gatekeepers of men’s sexuality. It ALWAYS places the responsibility on the woman when none of the blame lies on her in the first place.

That’s what makes this entire case so horrible and a contributing part to rape culture. The woman in this case did nothing but be herself and show up to do her job and because of that, she’s the one who is fired.

So take your stupid support of rape culture and shove it, and maybe TRY and listen to the people smarter than me and you who are trying to tell you something.

Because right now, YOU are part of the problem when you give a pass on shit like this, and that is not helping, least of all women.

princesscimorene

princesscimorene:

princesscimorene:

SO I had an amazing dinner at a Brazilian steakhouse the other night for a friend’s birthday. The food was sooooo good and they just kept bringing out all this delicious juicy meat and at the end they brought pineapples roasted over a fire with caramelized cinnamon sugar…

Well, the roasted pineapple had me lulled into a state of satisfied stupor…I couldn’t bring myself to get riled up about it until after I had digested a bit

That pineapple saves lives. Really, it has stopped me from fucking up a few people over the years.

sourcedumal

So according to the ashy dick mothafuckers, focusing on Black women first is MISANDRY!!

sourcedumal:

Well please enlighten me, ashy dick niggas

Who the hell is going to give a shit about us Black women first and foremost if we’re focusing on you ALL THE DAMN TIME?

WHO?

Because you sure as hell ain’t.

But apparently, because us Black women are apparently getting more jobs than they are (despite the fact that Black women are paid LESS than Black men on nearly ALL educational levels) it’s MISANDRY!!!!

Us caring about OUR LIVES in the face of that 60% of sexual assault and 35% higher domestic abuse rate is MISANDRY!!!

Exactly when the fuck are we supposed to give a damn about OUR LIVES?

Oh right.

We aren’t.

We’re supposed to worship the Black man even if he’s strangling us to death.

deliciouskaek
Boys are rarely told that their virginity is a gift, or indeed that their sexuality is about “giving” something to another person – lightly or not. Boys “get laid”, “get lucky”, “get some”. They “take a girl’s virginity”, “take advantage”; if they’re thoughtful, they “take their time”. Boys are not taught to think of themselves or their virginity as something to be offered up, unwrapped and enjoyed.

 Emily Maguire in ‘Like a Virgin’ for The Monthly (via monocled—misanthrope)

basically, young (cis) boys are taught to be predators. young (cis) girls are taught to be prey.

(via deliciouskaek)

Yep, and cis girls who speak of their own pleasure as a priority are immediately demonized for the temerity of seeing their bodies as their own. Meanwhile cis boys are supposed to seek pleasure at every opportunity.