iblamebuckybarnes:

unofficialhogwarts:

Headcanon that after the battle of Hogwarts, George dyes his hair an outrageous colour, and at first Molly is mad, but then she hears George whisper “I kept thinking it was him in the mirror”. 

image

rejennerate:

My favorite thing about feminism is that you literally only have to say the word and BOOM done, men will literally prove your point FOR you

b8l:

gcvsa:

ananiujitha:

mediocre-leftist:

I don’t even think “classism” is a totally coherent idea. What is that? Maybe like, the assumption of the working class all being the racist/homophobic/bigotted ones and somehow having the power to make society that way (even though society is run by the ruling class, who pretend to not be racist and construct shitty liberal ideas around these various bigotries to hide that shit)

The ideological rationale for class domination. The idea that the rich got there through hard work, and the poor through laziness, and if the poor would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they wouldn’t be poor, and the criminalization of the poor and especially the homeless…

Is this a joke? Classism isn’t a coherent idea?

Human civilisation has always consisted of two classes, those who enjoy the monopoly power of private property in the products of Nature, and those who do not. Classism is one of the primary drivers of Sexism, because women, as a class, have historically been prevented from obtaining subsistence via property through various means, from outright physical force to legal constructions under which women are separated from the legal protections offered in the civic realm to property owners, as well as the ability to acquire property ownership.

i’m really tired of this rhetoric in leftist circles.

classism is all kinds of things. it’s what was already mentioned - the ideological justifications for class domination and power. 

classism is the mindset that survival is earned. it’s the idea that someone deserves all the resources they “own” or paid for.

classism is the destruction of culture because it’s associated with poverty.

classism is the valuing of independence, comfort, and luxury above the lives of poor people.

classism is the exploitation of the stories of poverty for ideological advancement and emotional fulfillment.

classism is charity.

classism is food deserts, the school-to-prison pipeline, the directing of funding away from poor communities, the dumping of poison directly into poor neighborhoods.

classism is districting and gentrification.

classism is identification, paperwork, bureaucracy, and social services.

classism is “higher” education, health care, and the therapy industry.

classism is the pervasive myth that poor people don’t deserve anything and are incapable of doing anything for themselves.

classism is the idea that poor people’s lives need to be constantly monitored and micromanaged by the upper classes and the state.

classism is the 4.0 AP student being told her grades won’t be sent to the college she’s applying for because she’s homeless and doesn’t deserve it.

classism is forcing poor people to bend over backwards and labor for hours in exchange for a couch to sleep on.

classism is hearding the homeless into jails and armed shelters.

classism is dying on the street during a blizzard because no one will open their doors to you.

classism is laws against sleeping in your car, sleeping on the sidewalk, or having more than the alotted people in your living space.

classism is deciding that having your own room is more important than letting your homeless friend live with you.

classism is crack. street sex work. gun control. the police.

classism is pervasive chronic illness, malnutrition, and untreated injuries. 

classism is the automatic denial of your humanity based on how poorly you’re dressed, what cultural signifiers you carry, what stores you shop at, the way you talk, the way you travel, where you live.

and soooo much more. and a lot of this shit, as gemma mentioned, is tied in with other shit: patriarchy, white supremacy, etc. but it’s still classism.

everything you have is because of classism. every institution you have access to is because of classism. all the comforts of your life are there because of classism.

the idea that classism isn’t a “real” thing comes a class-privileged analysis that doesn’t want to address the ways in which the individual members of the upper classes enact classism and the exploitation and extermination of the poor. 

You physically CANNOT be a stripper and a feminist at the same time. It's people like you that give us a bad rap. Please leave
Anonymous

thestripperdiaries:

stripperina:

gpack3:

stripperina:

Sorry/not sorry that you don’t understand the point of bodily autonomy and would rather make YOUR feminism all about policing women’s life choices, but that’s “physically” the opposite of feminism. LOL

In anonymous’s defense, they are tricky to do literally at the same time. Have you ever tried to organize a rally in support of collective bargaining rights for domestic workers during a shift? It’s hard.

Why are you equating actively being feminist with organizing rallies? You realize that’s not all there is to it right? And I do engage in feminist practices at work regularly. I call out rape jokes, homophobia, and sexism. I stand up for sex workers. I work to dispel myths about our job to ignorant customers. My feminist beliefs intertwine into the conversations I have at work constantly.

👆
I can’t even begin to tell you how many guys I have given a huge kick in the ego and left them walking out of the club with their tail between their legs. I’m a slut? I’m entitled to have sex with you? I’m unintelligent? I have no value? Fuuuuuuuck that. I ain’t in the customer service industry where the customer is always right. Sex workers have the freedom to call that shit out, in comparison to say, the cashier at mcdonalds that has to sit back and smile at any derogatory remarks some dimwitted customer may sling at her.
We won’t lose our jobs over calling someone a misogynistic sack of shit. We can literally sit them down and list off alllllll the things they’re misunderstanding about us as women, because contrary to popular belief, men don’t attempt to mistreat us because we are sex workers. THEY DO IT BECAUSE WE ARE WOMEN.
If anything, feminists should be giving us praise. We are the Venus fly trap of the feminist movement. We lure guys in, and should they show any ounce of disrespect, we crush and devour their fucking souls.

marvelousmission:

yup. it’s atrocious.

marvelousmission:

yup. it’s atrocious.

The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

stardust-rain:

stardust-rain:

sometimes tumblr’s US-centric social justice makes me so fucking frustrated. Right now sweden’s third biggest party are literally neo-nazis and our elections couldn’t even get onto trending tags today, goddamit.

Okay, so the post is gaining notes and people are confused, so to explain what the hell is going on: 

image

Swedish elections held were on last Sunday, 14th September. We’ve had a right-leaning government the past eight years and after this there will be a change of power. The new party, Socialdemocrats (S) gained a total of 31% percent. The old party, Moderaterna (M) gained 21%. 

Sverigedemokraterna (SD) gained a total of 12.9%. Their policy is racist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, anti-diversity, anti-LGBT+, and anti-feminist. Basically, they tick every box on the douchebag lottery.

If you’re here to argue that they’re ~not actually~ Nazis: 1) Fuck you. 2) Fuck the horse the you rode in on. 3) I hope you get stepped on by a moose, you ignorant asswipe. 

  1.  they literally started as neo nazis. They have used a Neo-Nazi movement as campaign slogans,
  2. party members have assaulted immigrants with iron pipes (tw for racialised violence),
  3. worn Nazi symbols 
  4. supported and helped build Neo-Nazi group SvP.

There’s probably more, but I don’t have links on hand. 

They’ve been having rallies and demonstrations all over Sweden, and people have shown up just to turn their back on them and protest (this post explains it better). 

In the 2010 elections, SD were pretty much considered no better than neo-Nazis and only got 5.7% votes - it put them in 6th place and was just enough to get them into parliament. In the elections before that, they got about 2.9%. In the past four years, they’ve grown exponentially in Sweden.

They’ve also run extremely extensive PR campaigns, appealing to the youth, kicking out members “exposed” of being racist, (note: these members often end up in SvP) and picking up buzzwords from the Socialdemocrats’ ideology. 

29% of votes they gained this year were from swing voters who previously voted M,  and the biggest gain have been in the south, in small towns and the countryside:

image

This is not something that’s just going on in Sweden. Europe has seen an influx of extreme-right parties over the last decade or so, often thinly disguised as a party that puts ‘traditional values’ and ‘national interest’ first.

In Greece and Hungary they’ve already been in power. In Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Finland France and UK, extreme-right-wing parties have been voted into the EU. 

Because here’s the thing: we’ve forgotten what it looks like. We’ve gotten to the point where we’ve turned Nazism into a cartoonish lampoon of goose-stepping, uniforms and moral lessons that “we’ll never be like them~”, ignoring the fact nationalism is not as cut-and-dry two ends of an extreme but exists on a scale.

People have been apologising for SD’s actions for a while now because they’re not considered “extremist enough” to be neo-Nazis, because they don’t share the same beliefs, because they’ve “publicly denounced” SvP. 

But the same people still get hurt. Still SD has the institutional and systematic power and privilege to oppress, degrade and humiliate people of colour, which they already have done. Stop making excuses for them. Stop making leeways for right-wing-extremists because that is how they gain tract. 

Please spread this. 

rayguncourtesan:

trust-me-im-adoctor:

redventure:

juicyjacqulyn:

entropiaorganizada:

hookteeth:

hethatcures:

This legitimately upsets me.

… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.
So you might end up with more donuts.
But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?
Hrm.
HRM.

A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and  throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.
tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.

god i love this site

can’t argue with science. Heretofore, I want my donuts square.

more donut per donut

rayguncourtesan:

trust-me-im-adoctor:

redventure:

juicyjacqulyn:

entropiaorganizada:

hookteeth:

hethatcures:

This legitimately upsets me.

… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.

So you might end up with more donuts.

But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?

Hrm.

HRM.

A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and  throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.

The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (
R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.


tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.

god i love this site

can’t argue with science. Heretofore, I want my donuts square.

more donut per donut

descentintotyranny:

How to know that you hate women — Mychal Denzel Smith
Sep. 11 2014
Here’s a sure-fire way to know that you hate women: when an incident of intimate partner violence in which a man knocks a woman unconscious gains national attention and every question or comment you think to make has to do with her behavior, you really hate women. Like, despise.
There is no other explanation. There is no “I need all the facts.” There is no excuse. You hate women. Own it.
Now, you probably don’t believe you hate women. You probably honestly think you’re being an objective observer whose only interest is the truth. You are delusional.
We have this problem in our discourse around the most important challenges we face where we feel we have to be “fair to both sides.” But sometimes, one of those sides is subjugation and oppression. If you’re OK with legitimizing that side in the interest of “fairness,” you’re essentially saying you’re OK with oppression as a part of the human condition. That’s some hateful shit.
Violence against women doesn’t deserve a “fair” hearing. There should be no justifications offered, no rationalizing, no equivocating. Violence against women should be intolerable. But every time we are called upon to collectively denounce that violence, there’s a section of the choir that starts singing from a different set of sheet music.
“Well, I don’t believe he should have hit her, but she also shouldn’t have…”
“Hitting women is wrong, but if you’re going to step to a man like a man…”
“She has a responsibility to her family…”
“She stayed with him, so obviously she’s condoning that behavior…”
“It’s none of our business what happens between…”
“What did she expect?”
Hate. It’s all hate. Because if you can look at the history of women being beaten and battered into silence and second-class citizenship, and still ask if they are at all to blame for the violence visited upon them, there’s nothing else to call that.
There is a tendency to judge the actions of those with the least amount of power the same as those with more power and then ask, “Isn’t that what equality means?” It’s a clever rhetorical evasion of the issue. Equality is the goal, but to pretend that we actually exist as equals right now is to ignore reality. Like it or not, we all carry history with us in our personal interactions. The history of violence against women is one where women’s bodies are a battleground in a struggle for power. Punches, kicks, weapons, and the threat of death have been used to assert dominance and deny women autonomy, at home and out in the rest of the world.
That’s why it’s not a matter of it being wrong for a man to hit a woman because he may be physically stronger than her. It’s not about women being delicate. That line of thinking is standing on the right side of the issue for the wrong reasons. It reinforces patriarchal thinking about a man’s duty being protection.
No, violence against women is a scourge because it establishes a hierarchy of power. It is a means of ensuring submission. It assures the persistence of inequality through terror.
And if it any moment you can find yourself arguing that that may somehow be OK, you simply hate women. Consider that when you’re collecting all the facts.

descentintotyranny:

How to know that you hate women — Mychal Denzel Smith

Sep. 11 2014

Here’s a sure-fire way to know that you hate women: when an incident of intimate partner violence in which a man knocks a woman unconscious gains national attention and every question or comment you think to make has to do with her behavior, you really hate women. Like, despise.

There is no other explanation. There is no “I need all the facts.” There is no excuse. You hate women. Own it.

Now, you probably don’t believe you hate women. You probably honestly think you’re being an objective observer whose only interest is the truth. You are delusional.

We have this problem in our discourse around the most important challenges we face where we feel we have to be “fair to both sides.” But sometimes, one of those sides is subjugation and oppression. If you’re OK with legitimizing that side in the interest of “fairness,” you’re essentially saying you’re OK with oppression as a part of the human condition. That’s some hateful shit.

Violence against women doesn’t deserve a “fair” hearing. There should be no justifications offered, no rationalizing, no equivocating. Violence against women should be intolerable. But every time we are called upon to collectively denounce that violence, there’s a section of the choir that starts singing from a different set of sheet music.

“Well, I don’t believe he should have hit her, but she also shouldn’t have…

“Hitting women is wrong, but if you’re going to step to a man like a man…”

She has a responsibility to her family…”

She stayed with him, so obviously she’s condoning that behavior…”

“It’s none of our business what happens between…”

“What did she expect?”

Hate. It’s all hate. Because if you can look at the history of women being beaten and battered into silence and second-class citizenship, and still ask if they are at all to blame for the violence visited upon them, there’s nothing else to call that.

There is a tendency to judge the actions of those with the least amount of power the same as those with more power and then ask, “Isn’t that what equality means?” It’s a clever rhetorical evasion of the issue. Equality is the goal, but to pretend that we actually exist as equals right now is to ignore reality. Like it or not, we all carry history with us in our personal interactions. The history of violence against women is one where women’s bodies are a battleground in a struggle for power. Punches, kicks, weapons, and the threat of death have been used to assert dominance and deny women autonomy, at home and out in the rest of the world.

That’s why it’s not a matter of it being wrong for a man to hit a woman because he may be physically stronger than her. It’s not about women being delicate. That line of thinking is standing on the right side of the issue for the wrong reasons. It reinforces patriarchal thinking about a man’s duty being protection.

No, violence against women is a scourge because it establishes a hierarchy of power. It is a means of ensuring submission. It assures the persistence of inequality through terror.

And if it any moment you can find yourself arguing that that may somehow be OK, you simply hate women. Consider that when you’re collecting all the facts.

naamahdarling:

urulokid:

facebooksexism:

thebluelip-blondie:

skeptikhaleesi:

brownglucose:

nextyearsgirl:

The absence of women in history is man made.

How petty

just look at babe ruth’s face tho
so confused
so lost
i love it

pure hater shit

Jackie Mitchell…a bad ass lady I had never heard of. 

From her Wikipedia page: “Seventeen-year-old Jackie Mitchell, brought in to pitch in the first inning after the starting pitcher had given up a double and a single, faced Babe Ruth. After taking a ball, Ruth swung and missed at the next two pitches. Mitchell’s fourth pitch to Ruth was a called third strike. Babe Ruth glared and verbally abused the umpire before being led away by his teammates to sit to wait for another batting turn. The crowd roared for Jackie. Babe Ruth was quoted in a Chattanooga newspaper as having said:

"I don’t know what’s going to happen if they begin to let women in baseball. Of course, they will never make good. Why? Because they are too delicate. It would kill them to play ball every day."

Next up was the Iron Horse Lou Gehrig, who swung through the first three pitches to strike out. Jackie Mitchell became famous for striking out two of the greatest baseball players in history.
A few days after Mitchell struck out Ruth and Gehrig, baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis voided her contract and declared women unfit to play baseball as the game was “too strenuous.”[5][10] Mitchell continued to play professionally,barnstorming with the House of David, a men’s team famous for their very long hair and long beards.[11] While travelling with the House of David team, she would sometimes wear a fake beard for publicity.”
TL;DR: teenage girl strikes out two of the greatest baseball players ever, teenage girl gets her contract voided, teenage girl plays baseball wearing fake beard

These guys were so fucking injured by a teenage girl’s awesomeness that they literally threw a hissyfit and hung up a sign that said “NO GIRLS.”
They gave up.
They couldn’t handle it.
Losers. 
Teenage girls are amazing.

naamahdarling:

urulokid:

facebooksexism:

thebluelip-blondie:

skeptikhaleesi:

brownglucose:

nextyearsgirl:

The absence of women in history is man made.

How petty

just look at babe ruth’s face tho

so confused

so lost

i love it

pure hater shit

Jackie Mitchell…a bad ass lady I had never heard of. 

From her Wikipedia page: Seventeen-year-old Jackie Mitchell, brought in to pitch in the first inning after the starting pitcher had given up a double and a single, faced Babe Ruth. After taking a ball, Ruth swung and missed at the next two pitches. Mitchell’s fourth pitch to Ruth was a called third strike. Babe Ruth glared and verbally abused the umpire before being led away by his teammates to sit to wait for another batting turn. The crowd roared for Jackie. Babe Ruth was quoted in a Chattanooga newspaper as having said:

"I don’t know what’s going to happen if they begin to let women in baseball. Of course, they will never make good. Why? Because they are too delicate. It would kill them to play ball every day."

Next up was the Iron Horse Lou Gehrig, who swung through the first three pitches to strike out. Jackie Mitchell became famous for striking out two of the greatest baseball players in history.

A few days after Mitchell struck out Ruth and Gehrig, baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis voided her contract and declared women unfit to play baseball as the game was “too strenuous.”[5][10] Mitchell continued to play professionally,barnstorming with the House of David, a men’s team famous for their very long hair and long beards.[11] While travelling with the House of David team, she would sometimes wear a fake beard for publicity.”

TL;DR: teenage girl strikes out two of the greatest baseball players ever, teenage girl gets her contract voided, teenage girl plays baseball wearing fake beard

These guys were so fucking injured by a teenage girl’s awesomeness that they literally threw a hissyfit and hung up a sign that said “NO GIRLS.”

They gave up.

They couldn’t handle it.

Losers. 

Teenage girls are amazing.