I'm here, I'm queer, I'm angry, get used to it.

May 21, 2012

cassie-cooties:

brombie:

fatseux:

lyricalblueswing:

thesexychristianman:

hey girls

when u participate in those “slutwalks,” dont act surprised when a man walks by and grabs you. you knew what you were getting into when u showed up in ur bra and panties this morning.

its a males natural instinct to mate, and ur pretty much flashing a sign at him saying “i love sex.”

u wouldn’t dangle an animal carcass in front of a lion, and then blame the LION for taking it from you, would you? its the same thing

And there you have it!!!!!1

Did he?…. Did he just?….He did!…. He just… compared women to animal carcasses.

The amount of stupid this post had is hard to process.

Do you even know what a slutwalk is? And how is mating instinctively the same as eating? Like, people have this thing called “decision making,” a “conscience,” and “self-awareness.” When you’re dangling a ‘carcass (not a lioness)’ in front of a lion (who is - I am assuming - hungry) it’s going to obviously take the food because, well, there is nothing wrong with it. There is no struggling, the carcass does not say “NO,” and there is no confrontation. It is dead so it eats it. Meanwhile, human beings who are capable of this thing called “thought” can use it to process the situation.

When you are told NO, it usually quite means that. Being sex-positive and being confident and saying “I SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO ACT OR BE HOW I WANT TO BE” is not the same as “I want to fuck you because I like fucking.” It is saying, “This is my body, MY body; you have no right to touch it without my say-so.”

Next time you decide to spout off about anything, try to figure out exactly what you’re criticizing. There is, in these comparisons, nothing similar.

Let’s take a moment to look at the OP’s tumblr url as well.

Classy. This post is just all-around fucking classy.

(via nekrofix)

3:29am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZB0r_vLszP-M

(Notes: 84)

May 1, 2012

jubee-soup:

vinylroses:

Are you fucking kidding me

What even is this bullshit?

Is this actually a fucking thing?

Is this a fucking thing.

Are you shitting me.

(Source: imgfave, via nekrofix)

9:30pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZB0r_vKjDV-J

(Notes: 212,193)

Filed under: I don't even know what to tag this because I'm so mad horrible advertising implying that you won't be able to find someone unless you have perfect skin misogyny body shaming FUCK YOU

February 15, 2012

wow.

(Source: christinemarieh, via nekrofix)

2:11pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZB0r_vGS_HtK

(Notes: 43,596)

Filed under: Chris Brown misogyny douchebaggery

February 12, 2012

smogharp:

guiltyofthis:

rachellephant:

cyruspotnoodle:

cuppateaalmostgotshagged:

aweepingangel:

what the fuck

Sometimes, the biggest misogynists are women.

Jesus fucking Christ. I really hope these girls know what they’re condoning, you know? Because this is just fucking ridiculous. This romanticized domestic violence and violence in general. It excuses Chris Brown from being the asshole that it takes him to be to trash Rihanna like he did and, thereby, excuses every abuser reading these tweets. By excusing Chris, you excuse the community. It tells them: This is okay. You will still be accepted if you beat your wife. In fact, women will still want you. In fact, they’ll want you more, because they like that shit. It’s eerily reminiscent of rape jokes that glorify rapists—that tell rapists, “This is okay, and better yet, it’s funny to do that to a woman.” It’s not fucking funny. Do you think any woman who has ever been beaten has gone to the hospital or the therapy that ensues in some cases laughing? Or even smiling?

Take a fucking note, girls: being beaten and having rough sex is not the same thing, and never will be. Look at yourselves and seriously think about this. If you’ve ever thought it’s funny, or excusable, or attractive, or desirable, or masculine, just fucking look at yourselves.

You don’t want to be beaten. You don’t.

I know that some of my fondest memories are of being thrown into doors and slammed in the face.

;gfjlgkjdfskgsdl;fgds

……..What is wrong with people? Fucking hell.

(via fingersdownthethroatoflove)

11:54pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZB0r_vGLJ-mI

(Notes: 30,080)

Filed under: THIS IS NOT OKAY. misogyny women what the fuck are you doing

February 12, 2012

Who is grrrl/boicotting the Grammy's with us?

jubee-soup:

Grammy producers confirmed that Chris Brown will be performing on Sunday’s show.

“We’re glad to have him back,” said executive producer Ken Ehrlich. “I think people deserve a second chance, you know. If you’ll note, he has not been on the Grammys for the past few years and it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened.”

Read that quote again. Think hard about what is being said. Here is what this quote says to any woman who’s ever been abused:

By blacklisting Chris Brown from the Grammys for a “few” years (actually, a grand total of TWO Grammy Awards), the Grammys have gone above and beyond expectations for the social exile of an adult man who hit his girlfriend so hard she went to the hospital, and honestly it was really, really hard for them to show even that much support for victims of domestic violence worldwide.

It was rather thoughtless of Rihanna to go and get herself hit in the face by her boyfriend, because it’s put such a burden on the Grammys. Maybe if she hadn’t made such a big fuss out of it, things could have been easier for everyone.

The Grammys think that they were the victim of Chris Brown hitting Rihanna in the face.

The Grammys. Think. That they. Were the victim. Of Chris Brown. Hitting. Rihanna. In the face.

Never watched the Grammies, Emmies, whatever-else-ies; but now I have an actual reason not to.

What a load of steaming crap.

(Source: lipstick-feminists, via nekrofix)

7:06pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZB0r_vGKJ6N4

(Notes: 420)

Filed under: jesus. Chris Brown abuse douchebaggery misogyny

February 10, 2012

thedailywhat:

Santorum Santorum Says of the Day: Reacting to news that the Pentagon will ease gender restrictions on front line roles that previously excluded female service members, Rick Santorum told CNN’s John King he had “concerns” that “people” may go against the interest of missions “because of other types of emotions.”

Asked to clarify, Santorum dug himself deeper, saying he was speaking of “men’s emotional issues, not women.” Asked to clarify that, the GOP presidential nominee said he feared men “may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.”

But wait, there’s more: In additional to his concern with “emotional issues,” Santorum also worries women’s “physical strength and capability” may be lacking as well. ”[Y]ou may be out there on a mission where it’s you and a woman,” he told ABC News, “and if you’re injured, the ability to transport that person back [would be limited].”

Except that, due to needs on the ground, women are already doing many of the jobs they are now “officially” allowed to do — the lifting of the ban is mostly a formality.

And women remain banned from combat jobs, which limits their ability to advance to higher ranks. To put things in perspective, out of the 250,000 jobs banned to women, only 14,000 of them have opened up under the new policy.

But Santorum’s opinions on Women’s Rights should be nothing new to anyone who has read his 2005 book, It Takes a Family. In it, the former Pennsylvania Senator writes that supporting the family provides working mothers with “a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.”

[ap / abcnews / c&l / progressive.]