strawberreli:

korra:

people be like “are you really going to miss out on a potential friendship just because someone doesnt share your views on feminism/racism/etc.” and i’m like “ya lol”

(via inediblemadness)


Emma Watson represents the UN in her role as UN Women Goodwill Ambassador in Uruguay where she was campaigning for a higher representation of women in politics.

Emma Watson represents the UN in her role as UN Women Goodwill Ambassador in Uruguay where she was campaigning for a higher representation of women in politics.

(Source: vogue.co.uk, via bonafideloverrr)

"So, I ask to the women who are still not sure about rape culture, patriarchy, or male supremacy, if you see the problem behind a culture in which “no” is punishable, but where failure to say “no” makes any violation of your personhood your own fault. When you sit back for a moment and think to yourself that surely you can say no to men, and that I am blowing things way out of proportion, then at least do this test within your own life: Start saying No more often when No is what you really want to say. Establish firm boundaries with men and do not let up. See if the male you are saying no to immediately stops and respects your boundary, or if his automatic response, reflexive—as though he’s been learning how to do this since he was a boy, as though he sees no other response more logical than this—is to attempt to do what you have just asked him not to do to you. Notice how you feel when telling a man “no” as well. Do you feel butterflies in your stomach? Do you feel guilty (denying him his right of access to you)? Do you feel mean? Do you feel unsure at all as to whether or not you have the right to tell him no? It is very easy to feel that men are not so bad when you are still making sure to give them what they want."

Looking Male Supremacists Dead in Their Dead Eyes (The Boner Busters Takedown)

(via boundsofholly)

"It’s important to remember that nothing you did caused your harassment. You are worthy of walking around in a world that loves and appreciates you in ways you want to be loved and appreciated. Nothing you could have done, changed, or predicted would have stopped this from happening to you, and to the millions of others who experience it on the daily. Your miniskirt is not a crime. Your fat/disabled/masculine/brown/black/genderqueer/femme/pierced body is divine, and you’re still the fantastic magical creature you were this morning."

— July Westhale via Our Streets, Our Selves: Tips for Post-Harassment Self-Care (via fuckyeahautostraddle)

"

If you are female, expressing hatred for your own body is not just acceptable, it’s practically de rigeur. Failure to indulge in the requisite amount of self-flagellation – my thighs! my skin! my face! – isn’t just negligent, it’s unfeminine. Self-hatred is fundamental to how femininity is constructed, more fundamental than any of the more obvious external symbols (dress, make-up, shoes). What matters is not that you are beautiful, but you know your place in the beauty hierarchy (and since every woman ages, every woman’s place will eventually be somewhere at the bottom).

Young women are encouraged to bond over their dislike of excess body hair, surplus flesh and “uneven” skin. They are meant to do so in a jovial way, egged on by perky adverts informing them what “real women” do: worry about having underarms beautiful enough for a sleeveless top, celebrate curves with apologetic booty shakes and cackle ruefully over miserable Sex-and-the-City-style lunches of Ryvita and Dulcolax. It’s a gendered ritual; men get football and booze, women get control pants and detoxes. We are supposed, of course, to be grateful. Hey, you don’t have to be perfect! Just know you’re not perfect and act accordingly, with the appropriate levels of guilt and shame!

Fairy tale after fairy tale tells us that what matters is being beautiful “on the inside” but what does that really mean? It means submission, obedience and the suppression of one’s own desires. Don’t be haughty and proud. Clean the hearth. Kiss the frog. Love the beast. Suck it up when you’re replaced by a younger model. Sure, you may look fine, but you mustn’t feel fine. You mustn’t be vain. You mustn’t be angry. All fury and pain must be turned back on itself. That way you’ll be a real princess: silent, fragile and never threatening to challenge the status quo.

"

— Glosswatch, Almost Famous, real women, and the normalisation of self-hate. (via nextyearsgirl)

(via dentonsocialists)

kuunakullanvalkeana:

froelich:

lesbipocalypse:

annielesbianhardt:

does anyone else get reeeeeeeally bothered when people say that bi/pansexuals “fall in love with the person, not the genitals” bc i feel like that’s a direct dig at gay ppl like it sounds the same as when straight ppl say gays and lesbians can’t love and just want sex and are ~DEVIANTS~

it makes it sound like gays and lesbians simply fall in love with genitals. Not people, just genitals

I virtually always hear this hearts-not-parts nonsense directed at lesbians, which is interesting. if loving males and females means you love “people,” but only loving females means you love “genitals,” what are you really trying to say?

image

image

It also erases transgender people.

pixiepienix:

alisonshendrixs:

if u can’t handle me at my hardcore feminist then u can’t have me at literally any other time bc that’s all i am 24/7

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(via duskyfelidae)

Tags: me tru


Emma Watson, UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, takes notes during an event at Parliament in Montevideo, Uruguay on September, 17

Emma Watson, UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, takes notes during an event at Parliament in Montevideo, Uruguay on September, 17

(Source: emmawathson, via heylordvoldeshort)

Unbreakable Now Expands to Include Relationship Violence and Child Abuse Survivors

projectunbreakable:

After almost three years of working one-on-one with sexual assault survivors, we began to discuss plans to expand our mission - we want to be able to support and extend the healing powers of Unbreakable to as many people as possible. After careful discussion and consideration, we have decided to invite survivors of relationship violence and child abuse (in any form - physical, verbal, emotional, financial, etc) to take part in Unbreakable.

If you are interested in participating in Unbreakable you can submit a photograph of yourself holding a poster with a quote from your abuser to projectunbreakablesubmissions@gmail.com. We kindly ask that you note which subject you are submitting to in the subject line - “relationship violence” or “child abuse”.

With deep gratitude,
The Unbreakable Team

(via projectunbreakable)

womenwhokickass:

skeptikhaleesi:

It’s that time again! :-) I’m happy to announce my 2nd tumblr giveaway, featuring cool new prizes as well as some old faves. This time I’m organizing it through rafflecopter, so be sure to pay extra attention to the rules!

~Rules:~
1) This is a thank you present for my followers, so yes, you must be following me (don’t worry, if u can rough it through the patriarchy u will survive my selfies Be Strong My Sisters)
2) New followers are welcome and appreciated, but for the love of bell hooks do not follow only with the intention of unfollowing later. People put their time, money, and energy into giveaways, it’s dishonest and rude af to do that look at ur life look at ur choices
3) Likes do count, but I strongly suggest that you reblog too, at least once. (You must like or reblog this post at least once to enter! I’ll be checking.) SUPER IMPORTANT LIKE BEYONCE-LEVEL IMPORTANT: Be sure to record every entry on rafflecopter, that’s the only way it’s guaranteed to be seen, because that’s what I’ll be using to pick the winner since tumblr is notorious for eating notes on giveaway posts!
4) I will ship anywhere ‘cept Narnia and Nightvale u live in Siberia u live in Nebraska whatever that’s fine u’ll get ur shit *gently dabs your forehead with a damp towel*
5) There are loads of ways to get extra entries and most of them aren’t even that annoying, check it out on rafflecopter just do it u kno u want these goodies.
6) No reblogging to giveaway blogs it’s cheating and u know it *peeps at u over my rad shades*
7) Giveaway ends at 11:59 pm PST on September 30th. Stuff will be sent out sometime in the few weeks after that calm down friend you’re waiting for some cutesy bracelets not the third season of Orange Is The New Black

~1st Prize:~
* Your choice of up to 5 feminist books (pictured). Yes folks a few of these are thrifted but none of them look like they were the property of the Half-Blood Prince don’t be a hater u capitalist pig
* Your choice of 3 buttons from my shop, hella awesome.
* Your choice of 3 bracelets - a full list isn’t available yet because I’m visiting family and I stupidly forgot to take pictures before I left, but samples are above. Examples include: Feminist, Riot Grrrl, Khaleesi, Queen, Mermaid, etc. More pics will be posted later don’t panic these bracelets are cute as hell
* Your choice of 5 (individual) stickers from my shop - not all of the designs are officially up for sale yet, but you can still choose those designs!
* One pack of 4 Superhero Buttons ft Supergirl and Wonder Woman
* Your choice of one “No Uterus, No Opinion”, Powerpuff Girls, or “I heart Men” button
* One Wonder Woman Keychain
* One custom mixed CD of “girl power” songs (playlist is a surprise!)

~2nd Prize:~
Your choice of the following -
* One book and 3 stickers
OR
* 3 stickers, 1 bracelet, 1 button
OR
* 2 buttons, 1 bracelet

~3rd prize:~
* A bracelet, button, or 3 stickers of your choice

Okay that should do it, stay tuned for additional info and possible additional prizes in the coming weeks!

Hey, I’m running a feminist giveaway on my personal, and I thought some of you might be interested!  You get two extra entries just for being a follower of WKA. <3

Tags: giveaway

sisterresister:

Womyn’s land in Oregon, 1974

sisterresister:

Womyn’s land in Oregon, 1974

(via adayinthelesbianlife)

Violence against Indigenous Women: Fun, Sexy, and No Big Deal on the Big Screen

washuta:

image

The body of 15-year-old Tina Fontaine, a member of Sagkeeng First Nation, was pulled from the Red River in Winnipeg on August 17.  Her murder has brought about an important conversation about the widespread violence against First Nations women and the Canadian government’s lack of concern.

In her August 20 Globe and Mail commentary, Dr. Sarah Hunt of the Kwagiulth band of the Kwakwaka’wakw First Nation wrote about the limited success of government inquiries and her concerns about other measures taken in reaction to acts of violence already committed, such as the establishment of DNA databases for missing persons. Dr. Hunt writes:

Surely tracking indigenous girls’ DNA so they can be identified after they die is not the starting point for justice. Indigenous women want to matter before we go missing. We want our lives to matter as much as our deaths; our stake in the present political struggle for indigenous resurgence is as vital as the future.”

Violence against indigenous women is not, of course, happening only in Canada. In the U.S., for example, the Justice Department reports that one in three American Indian women have been raped or experienced an attempted rape, and the rate of sexual assault against American Indian women is more than twice the national average. This violence is not taking place only in Indian Country.

In the Globe and Mail on August 22, Elizabeth Renzetti wrote about three recent murders of First Nations women. “What unites these three cases is that the victims – Tina Fontaine, Samantha Paul and Loretta Saunders – were all aboriginal women. What else unites them, besides the abysmal circumstances of their deaths? What economic, cultural, historical or social factors? Anything? Nothing?”

image

I can’t answer that, but I know that all of these women—and every other indigenous woman in Canada and the U.S.—lives in a society that includes images of violence against indigenous women in its entertainment products. Over and over, violence against indigenous women is made to titillate, built into narratives along with action, suspense, swashbuckling, and romance. Indigenous women become exotic props, and when we are identified with these dehumanized caricatures, it becomes easier to treat us inhumanely.

image

Take as an example Disney’s Pocahontas. Released in 1995, the cartoon feature has replaced the historical figure’s life story in the minds of many Americans. Much has been made of Disney’s exotification of Pocahontas. John Smith is only compelled to put down his gun because of her beauty. Pocahontas is imbued with animal qualities throughout the film as she scuttles, bounds, swims, creeps, and dives. This reinforces a long-held conception of Native peoples as being “close to nature” at best, “more animal than human” at worst—and the latter is a view that makes us easier to abuse.

image

 The recent depiction of Emily (a Makah woman) in the Twilight series offers viewers a direct representation of violence in a fictional Native community. Emily’s broad, visible facial scar is said to be the result of her partner Sam’s (a Quileute man/werewolf) outburst of rage: he was a younger werewolf, with difficulty controlling his “phasing” from human to wolf, he became angry, and she was standing too close. The presentation of this story problematic in its shrugging absolution of Sam of his responsibility in maiming Emily, and the aftermath is heartbreaking: in the more detailed version of the story presented in the Twilight books, after Sam mauls Emily, she not only takes him back, but convinces him to forgive himself. This sends the message that an episode of violence can and should be overlooked for the sake of romance. Emily, a Native woman, becomes expendable. Her safety is of little concern; the fact that Sam has “imprinted” on her, cementing his attachment, is more important than the reality of recidivism.

In a Globe and Mail editorial, “How to Stop an Epidemic of Native Deaths,” the author brings up the many social factors at work in the epidemic of violence against Native women. I bring up the problematic and pervasive imagery above not because I think it is the most problematic issue, but because it is what I know, and because we can start solving it with our individual actions. We don’t need to call Native women “squaws” and joke that they were “hookers” when forced into prostitution, as Drunk History did last year. We can make better choices than “naughty Native” costumes on Halloween. We have the freedom to choose the representations we make in the world, and when we perpetuate damaging stereotypes of indigenous women as rapeable, we are using our autonomy to disempower others.

Karen Warren wrote in “A feminist philosophical perspective on ecofeminist spiritualities”:

"Dysfunctional systems are often maintained through systematic denial, a failure or inability to see the reality of a situation. This denial need not be conscious, intentional, or malicious; it only needs to be pervasive to be effective."

image

I’m tired of hearing that these images aren’t harmful. I’d rather see how much they’re missed when they’re gone than continue to listen to the insistence that the image of Pocahontas at the end of a gun barrel is wholesome while, every day, more and more indigenous women die while we are told that this is not a phenomenon, not a problem, nothing more than crime.

fuckyeahsexpositivity:

micdotcom:

LGBT women face a dangerous problem when it comes to health care 

New data is shedding light on the difference in well-being between LGBT and non-LGBT Americans, and it’s highlighting a crucial, yet overlooked fact about the community: LGBT people, but LGBT women in particular, are less likely to have a primary care doctor or to be able to afford health care in the first place.
These insights are courtesy of new Gallup polling numbers that examined the physical and financial well-being of LGBT people, as well as their access to health insurance and doctors. Gallup’s data revealed that on average, LGBT people are far more likely that their straight counterparts to be uninsured, while LGBT women in particular are more likely than non-LGBT women, non-LGBT men and even LGBT men to lack a personal doctor, by a 13-point margin.
Their health is suffering | Follow micdotcom


Unsurprising, though I wish they had a better breakdown of the results than “LGBT” and “non-LGBT.” It would be interesting to know the difference between, say, gay men and lesbians, or trans men and trans women.
—BB

fuckyeahsexpositivity:

micdotcom:

LGBT women face a dangerous problem when it comes to health care 

New data is shedding light on the difference in well-being between LGBT and non-LGBT Americans, and it’s highlighting a crucial, yet overlooked fact about the community: LGBT people, but LGBT women in particular, are less likely to have a primary care doctor or to be able to afford health care in the first place.

These insights are courtesy of new Gallup polling numbers that examined the physical and financial well-being of LGBT people, as well as their access to health insurance and doctors. Gallup’s data revealed that on average, LGBT people are far more likely that their straight counterparts to be uninsured, while LGBT women in particular are more likely than non-LGBT women, non-LGBT men and even LGBT men to lack a personal doctor, by a 13-point margin.

Their health is suffering | Follow micdotcom

Unsurprising, though I wish they had a better breakdown of the results than “LGBT” and “non-LGBT.” It would be interesting to know the difference between, say, gay men and lesbians, or trans men and trans women.

—BB

(via hellyeahscarleteen)

enlightenight said: I have recently stated how it was not normal to call Severus Snape a hero or romanticize him was wrong because he literally stole Lily's photograph (that she sent to Sirius) and kind of applied mobbing on Harry and many other kids and he is kind of creepy and people a little attacked me because just because they are creepy it doesn't mean we can't romanticize them etc etc. What do you think about it?

mythandrists:

I think you’re absolutely on the right side of this argument, and here’s what we say to Snape lovers:

We all accept the following to be true, right?

  • Stalking is wrong.
  • Emotional abuse is wrong.
  • Cruelty to children and animals is wrong.
  • Blaming someone for their parents’ actions is wrong.
  • Racial discrimination is wrong.
  • Murder (the killing of civilians when you have no self-defence excuse) is wrong.

We’re good so far, yeah? If you saw someone doing those things in real life, you’d stop them or call the cops, right? I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page here. Morally, those things are wrong (and illegal). So, moving out of hypothetical moral discourse and into the realm of things Snape actually did in the Harry Potter books and/or movies:

  • Snape called Lily a Mudblood, which in the HP verse is a pretty serious racial slur. It’s like using the ‘n’ word or the ‘f’ word (not the ‘fuck’ word) in our society. It’s nasty.
  • Snape treated Hermione terribly and heavily implied that it was because she was Muggle-born. Again, racial discrimination. A teacher in the real-life school I went to was fired for that.
  • Snape was in a position of power over Harry and treated him (and many other Gryffindors) exceedingly poorly. He was rude, condescending, unfair in his enforcement of the rules, manipulative, and probably other things besides. This counts as emotional abuse. If someone in a position of power over you treats you the way Snape treated Harry, even if he saves your life, you are being emotionally abused.
  • On that same note, Snape was a grown man who acted like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum at Harry and his friends.
  • Snape was Neville Longbottom’s worst fear. JKR treats it lightly in the books, but the fact remains that a thirteen-year-old boy was so afraid of Snape that he couldn’t speak to him, and that the thought of him stepping out of a wardrobe was almost too much for Neville to handle. No adult should ever terrify a child like this. It’s emotional abuse, and it’s abuse of power.
  • Snape mistreated Harry because of actions James had taken. Not only is it childish to hold onto this grudge, it’s just plain wrong to treat someone badly because you disliked their parents. This is the same prejudice the Dursleys held against Harry. If you believe that the Dursleys had no excuse for their behaviour, how can you believe that Snape does have one?
  • Snape killed many innocent people just because they were Muggle-born.

I want to address this last point before I move on. Now, you can argue that the cost of a few lives for Snape to get close to Voldemort and help carry out Dumbledore’s grand plan for the war was worth it - and if that was the only crime that Snape had committed, I might be persuaded to see him as morally grey; you might be able to convince me that he was only being a vile person because he had to be. But if you look at the rest of this list, you’ll realise that really, Snape deeply enjoyed being a vile person.

So now you see that Snape was terrible to Harry, Hermione, Neville, and even Lily just because he enjoyed doing it, and you see that he did much worse to complete strangers who had committed no crime.

And that’s just the short list.

Great, now let’s talk about why Snily is one of the worst ships that anyone could ever ship.

  • Snape was cruel to Petunia when they were children, even though Lily was trying very hard to maintain a relationship with her sister despite their differences.
  • Snape tried to manipulate Lily into loving him and only him, and putting aside all of her other relationships.
  • Snape did not respect Lily’s beliefs and opinions.
  • After Lily started dating James, Snape started referring to her as a Mudblood - indicating that his friendship and his “love” were not unconditional.
  • Snape willingly became a Death Eater, a member of a group who hunted people like Lily for fun, and at the time he saw absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  • After Lily’s death, Snape left her son in his crib. He left a crying, helpless infant all alone in a wrecked house in a thunderstorm while there were rogue Death Eaters on the loose. He essentially left Harry to die.
  • And then he cut the two people she loved most out of her photograph and pretended that they had never existed, that he was the only person who mattered in her life.
  • And then, as mentioned above, he abused Harry emotionally and became the bane of his existence for years.

Snape did not love Lily. You don’t call someone you love a racial slur. You don’t insist that the person you love choose you over her other friends. If the person you love has a son she gave her life for, you don’t treat him badly just because you feel like it.

Yes, even if that love is unrequited.

What Snape felt for Lily was not love; it was possessiveness. He wanted her to be his. He wanted her to leave James for him. He wanted her to pick sides for him. He wanted to hold her close and smother her and never let her go. Snape didn’t love Lily; he loved himself. He was a narcissistic, bitter, emotionally abusive creep who couldn’t deal with the fact that his first crush ended up marrying someone else.

"But wait!" you say, white-knuckling your desk and probably wishing you had a wand to hex me with for saying such things about your baby. "He had an abusive childhood! He was lonely! He was sad! He was greasy and no one loved him! Doesn’t that excuse everything?”

Keep your shirt on. No, it doesn’t excuse anything.

People are responsible for their own actions. Tom Riddle’s dad didn’t love him either, and does that excuse him committing genocide? No? So why should Snape’s acne problem excuse him participating in genocide and attempting to make his supposed “true love“‘s child into someone just as bitter and miserable as he was? Look, Snape wasn’t just a little creepy. He was a murderer. He was as abusive as Dolores Umbridge. He was as self-centered as Voldemort. Harry was abused as a child, and he didn’t turn out to be a complete monster, so why does Snape get a free pass?

IN CONCLUSION

Romanticisting Snape is not only incredibly stupid and short-sighted, it’s dangerous. Putting men like this into fiction and presenting them as “good guys” or morally grey or brave or deserving of sympathy encourages the boys who read these books to behave like Snape, and it encourages the straight girls/gay boys who read these books to accept the existence of these men in real life and to want to date them. Which you don’t ever, ever want to do.

If you ever meet a Snape in real life, run the other way, and don’t give him your sympathy.

tl;dr Having a sad backstory does not automatically make you sympathetic. Doing one good thing does not automatically make you a beacon of bravery and justice. Fuck you, Snivellus.

keeva99:

dear television, i know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but some lesbians have never slept with, and never will sleep with, men. 

(via monosexuals)