1. thisgingerisrad:

pearlescent-starscape:

kennyvee:

“Parliamentary inquiry: At what point must a female Senator raise her hand or her voice in order to be heard over the male Senators in the room?”
And the gallery goes wild.
This is after she’s had previous motions completely ignored, despite the fact that everyone except the chair apparently heard her.

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

FUCK.YES.

    thisgingerisrad:

    pearlescent-starscape:

    kennyvee:

    “Parliamentary inquiry: At what point must a female Senator raise her hand or her voice in order to be heard over the male Senators in the room?”

    And the gallery goes wild.

    This is after she’s had previous motions completely ignored, despite the fact that everyone except the chair apparently heard her.

    YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    FUCK.YES.

  2. deantrippe:

timekiller-s:

istealforksfromrestaurants:

Hi Tumblr, it’s me, a slightly older person…
I see a lot of you 20 somethings saying things about how you aren’t going to choose the lesser of two evils and that their policy on important matters are identical so what’s the point they’re both stooges for Wall Street and the Industrial War Complex. 
You are right. Kind of. 
I know y’all LOVE the 90’s. Me too. And I remember after after eight years of Clinton/Gore, I thought those motherfuckers were the devil. I was soooooooooooo upset with Bill Clinton waving his deregulation wand and his fucked foreign policy that I was all FUCK THE DEMOCRATS and I strongly advocated for Ralph Nader, even though he too didn’t really care about my “gonad politics.” Even when not choosing between the “lesser of two evils,” I was STILL having to compromise major issues. 
Having been an adult person through 8 years of Clinton/Gore and 8 years through Bush/Cheney, I can tell you without a shred of hesitation that I will line up like my ass is on fire to vote for the lesser of two evils because the greater of two evils almost had us all living outside and eating dog food. 
And if you think that a Romney presidency won’t be worse than Bush/Cheney, you are out of your mind. 
I am fucking begging all of you, please, go vote. Aside from the fact that far more dangerous things are happening on your local level, (like collective bargaining being taken away in Illinois) this shit does matter. 
If you think voting for Obama is the lesser of two evils, you’re wrong, it’s the lesser of three because not voting IS voting for Romney. Not voting is voting for dickbag judges that sentence people to jail in counties that have privatized prisons for minor drug infractions. Not voting is voting to remove pensions and collective bargaining and the last shreds of union power from the people. Not voting this election is voting for Feudalism.
Go vote. 
Now pardon me, there’s some damn kids on my lawn and they want candy. 

Bold emphasis is placed by me.

Not voting is how you vote Republican.

    deantrippe:

    timekiller-s:

    istealforksfromrestaurants:

    Hi Tumblr, it’s me, a slightly older person…

    I see a lot of you 20 somethings saying things about how you aren’t going to choose the lesser of two evils and that their policy on important matters are identical so what’s the point they’re both stooges for Wall Street and the Industrial War Complex. 

    You are right. Kind of. 

    I know y’all LOVE the 90’s. Me too. And I remember after after eight years of Clinton/Gore, I thought those motherfuckers were the devil. I was soooooooooooo upset with Bill Clinton waving his deregulation wand and his fucked foreign policy that I was all FUCK THE DEMOCRATS and I strongly advocated for Ralph Nader, even though he too didn’t really care about my “gonad politics.” Even when not choosing between the “lesser of two evils,” I was STILL having to compromise major issues. 

    Having been an adult person through 8 years of Clinton/Gore and 8 years through Bush/Cheney, I can tell you without a shred of hesitation that I will line up like my ass is on fire to vote for the lesser of two evils because the greater of two evils almost had us all living outside and eating dog food. 

    And if you think that a Romney presidency won’t be worse than Bush/Cheney, you are out of your mind. 

    I am fucking begging all of you, please, go vote. Aside from the fact that far more dangerous things are happening on your local level, (like collective bargaining being taken away in Illinois) this shit does matter. 

    If you think voting for Obama is the lesser of two evils, you’re wrong, it’s the lesser of three because not voting IS voting for Romney. Not voting is voting for dickbag judges that sentence people to jail in counties that have privatized prisons for minor drug infractions. Not voting is voting to remove pensions and collective bargaining and the last shreds of union power from the people. Not voting this election is voting for Feudalism.

    Go vote. 

    Now pardon me, there’s some damn kids on my lawn and they want candy. 

    Bold emphasis is placed by me.

    Not voting is how you vote Republican.

  3. kellyoxenfree:

    schwoozie:

    [x]

    I LOVE THIS.

  4. samueloser:

    colorsfly:

    I hate how we’re taught “don’t get raped” when it should be “don’t rape”.

    Nothing disgusts me more

  5. kateordie:

    Sometimes I have the time and patience to get from an idea to a fully fleshed-out, penciled, inked and coloured comic.

    Sometimes I don’t.

  6. northcentralpositronics:

    meandnothingless:

    Got a problem with gay marriage? How about gay rights in general? Want to know what the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality? PLEASE reblog this soeveryone can be educated. 

    YES THANK YOU

  7. "

    Women invented all the core technologies that made civilization possible. This isn’t some feminist myth; it’s what modern anthropologists believe. Women are thought to have invented pottery, basketmaking, weaving, textiles, horticulture, and agriculture. That’s right: without women’s inventions, we wouldn’t be able to carry things or store things or tie things up or go fishing or hunt with nets or haft a blade or wear clothes or grow our food or live in permanent settlements. Suck on that.

    Women have continued to be involved in the creation and advancement of civilization throughout history, whether you know it or not. Pick anything—a technology, a science, an art form, a school of thought—and start digging into the background. You’ll find women there, I guarantee, making critical contributions and often inventing the damn shit in the first place.

    Women have made those contributions in spite of astonishing hurdles. Hurdles like not being allowed to go to school. Hurdles like not being allowed to work in an office with men, or join a professional society, or walk on the street, or own property. Example: look up Lise Meitner some time. When she was born in 1878 it was illegal in Austria for girls to attend school past the age of 13. Once the laws finally eased up and she could go to university, she wasn’t allowed to study with the men. Then she got a research post but wasn’t allowed to use the lab on account of girl cooties. Her whole life was like this, but she still managed to discover nuclear fucking fission. Then the Nobel committee gave the prize to her junior male colleague and ignored her existence completely.

    Men in all patriarchal civilizations, including ours, have worked to downplay or deny women’s creative contributions. That’s because patriarchy is founded on the belief that women are breeding stock and men are the only people who can think. The easiest way for men to erase women’s contributions is to simply ignore that they happened. Because when you ignore something, it gets forgotten. People in the next generation don’t hear about it, and so they grow up thinking that no women have ever done anything. And then when women in their generation do stuff, they think “it’s a fluke, never happened before in the history of the world, ignore it.” And so they ignore it, and it gets forgotten. And on and on and on. The New York Times article is a perfect illustration of this principle in action.

    Finally, and this is important: even those women who weren’t inventors and intellectuals, even those women who really did spend all their lives doing stereotypical “women’s work”—they also built this world. The mundane labor of life is what makes everything else possible. Before you can have scientists and engineers and artists, you have to have a whole bunch of people (and it’s usually women) to hold down the basics: to grow and harvest and cook the food, to provide clothes and shelter, to fetch the firewood and the water, to nurture and nurse, to tend and teach. Every single scrap of civilized inventing and dreaming and thinking rides on top of that foundation. Never forget that.

    "

    from a post by Reclusive Leftist on women’s erasure in history. 

    her comments relate specifically to an article by the NYT thanking “the men” who invented modern technology, but pick absolutely any academic field of study, and women’s contributions are minimized, if not outright ignored.

    literature has been a huge part of my life for a long time, and i grew up reading the classics—which, of course, are typically books written by white men, depicting their experiences. i was taught that the first “modern novel” was Don Quixote, written in the early 1600s by a guy (Cervantes). i don’t think i know of a word to accurately describe my mixture of outrage, shock, and pride, when i discovered later that actually, the first modern novel was written 600 years earlier—by a woman! (it’s The Tale of Genji, written by a Japanese lady-in-waiting who was known as Murasaki Shikibu.)

    this might not seem important, but if you’re a woman you know just how vital this knowledge is. even now, when women are being told that we can do anything we set our minds to, the historical, literary, and scientific figures we learn about are all men. it’s a much more insidious way to discourage women from aiming high—because what’s the point in putting in so much hard work if it’s not even going to be remembered after you’re dead?

    (via sendforbromina)

  8. paulmccallme:

    why do people say “you’re a pussy” to signify that you’re weak

    excuse you

    when was the last time a penis gave birth 

  9. We’re seventh in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy. 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined.

  10. sandandglass:

    Jon Stewart is amazing. 

  11. "Now they’re saying that we can’t have gay marriage because it would confuse the kids. But you know what else confuses kids? Everything: Time zones. Books without pictures. Cargo pants. Certain hair colors. Jello molds. The magic trick with the quarter behind the ear. Mirrors. Mentadent toothpaste dispensers. Everything confuses kids, because they’re kids. So “Will it confuse kids?” is probably not the best litmus test for, well, anything besides toys and Spongebob plotlines (and even then, there’s a lot of leeway)."
    Amelie Gillette (via lgbtlaughs) (via alaskaandaugustus) (via rebekahsweetheart)
  12. livealifethatscompletelyfree:

    erosum: 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash Americans

    erosum:

    This truly sums it all up. Why, I’ve asked myself for years, don’t my fact-driven arguments get through to my right-wing father (and others of his ilk)?

    http://www.truth-out.org/14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans/1309612678

    Dr. Cynthia Boaz, Assistant Professor of…

    • Them: I don't think kids should be exposed to gay relationships.
    • You: Why not?
    • Them: It's introducing children to sexuality! They're too young for that!
    • You: So when a prince and princess kiss in a Disney movie, are they introduced to sexuality? When the prince and the princess get married and have a child, is that introducing your child to sexuality?
    • Them: NO! But if they see a man and a man, or a woman and a woman together... they're going to start asking questions! Like how a man and a man can... you know, do anything together.
    • You: You think the only thing people think when they see a gay couple is "I wonder how they have sex"? Furthermore, you think a CHILD is going to even know what that means? When the prince and the princess kiss, does your 4 year old daughter ask, "mommy, how do people have intercourse"? No. She just sees two people in love. If you remember when you were a kid, you probably didn't think about sex every time you saw two people happy together.
    • Them: But it'll bring up all kinds of questions, it'll confuse my child!
    • You: Then be a fucking parent and explain it to your child. The only question that might be brought up is "mom, why don't you want gay people to be happy?". And when you don't have a good answer for that question, you can look your child in the eye and say "It's because I'm a bigot".

About me

Don't let the title fool you--it's mainly squee that you'll find here.

Fond of procrastinating and fangirling. Currently obsessed with Game of Thrones and the adorable Arya/Gendry. Also in love with Community, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, The Mindy Project, My Mad Fat Diary, The Paradise, The Newsroom, Doctor Who, Firefly, Buffy, Miranda, True Blood, Misfits, costume dramas, young adult literature, and far too many other things to list. Socially progressive. Anglophile and bibliophile.

Still waiting for Peter to take me off to Neverland or for the TARDIS to show up on my street corner and whisk me off to some grand adventure and something MORE... A girl can dream, right? ;)

Likes