Install this theme

viola-davis:

Charlie Rose: Are you where you thought you would be? Are you further than you thought you would be? Have you had the opportunity to show how good you are? [x]

socialismartnature:

We can now add “Running from a Bomb While Brown,” or “Injured While Saudi” to the list of racist categories of crime that exist in the U.S.

socialismartnature:

We can now add “Running from a Bomb While Brown,” or “Injured While Saudi” to the list of racist categories of crime that exist in the U.S.

karnythia:

I figured it was something like this. No rules + staying in the house.

Will’s expressions though—proud papa!

I rang the literary editors of a few ‘respected’ papers and asked them how much space they were giving to women writers in their ‘review’ sections. Perfectly predictable response. They all said the allocation was fair. One said it was equal, and one prominent editor went so far as to say women are dominating the reviews!

… What happened when I asked who was doing the talking in mixed sex conversations? Well, it was the women of course. And then when you get to measure it you find that women get to talk about 10-20% of the time in conversations with men. A woman who talks about a third of the time is seen to be dominating the talk.

And what happened when I asked teachers who got their attention in class? Well, it was all equal, wasn’t it? No preferences there. And you measure it and find that girls get about 10-20% of the teacher’s attention. Any more, and the boys think it unfair - and go into revolt.

So what do you think I found with the reviews?

I would have predicted about 10-20% of the space went to women’s books. Well, it is less than 6% of the column inches. And the reasonable editor who thinks that women are getting more than their share is one of the worst offenders. Poor boys! It really tells you something when they think only 94% of the review section is not enough, doesn’t it? When 6% for women is too much you get some idea how much men think they are entitled to - as a fair deal.

Dale Spender, correspondence, in Dale and Lynne Spender, Scribbling Sisters (Camden Press, 1986), pp. 31-32 (via radtransfem)

feministartdegree:

wtfniceguys:

alexandraerin:

moniquill:

sxizzor:

sendificator:

abaldwin360:

mssswitch:

brainstatic:

He is trying to explain that not getting laid (incel means involuntary celibate) is a violation of his civil rights and a grossly overlooked injustice.  He is completely serious. This is his blog.

what a fucking creepy fucker

Oh my fucking GOD. What an entitled little douche.

“BEING WITHOUT A RELATIONSHIP AND SEX AGAINST YOUR WILL FOR OVER 6 MONTHS” cry me a river

what is that civil rights analogy even

Dear guys who don’t understand why women are often cagey around you:

These men walk among you and are indistinguishable from you until it’s too late.

From his About Me: “I want to share the idea that governments have to help people get partners.”

Suddenly, in a totally unrelated coincident, I have a brilliant and terrifying idea for a new dystopian fiction setting.

 

OH MY GOD. I cannot with Nice Guys™ like this. FUCK.

I’ll try to contain my rage with a nice numbered list of why he is SO fucking wrong. Ahem.

  • Women are often single too, even when they don’t want to be. Nobody is entitled to a relationship with anyone. Period.
  • Comparing women to restaurants is disgusting and objectifying. Stop.
  • Comparing the civil rights movement to you not getting laid is also disgusting. Stop that too.
  • You may not like being single, but that is not, in any way shape or form, oppression. 
  • You are probably single “against your will” because you view women as restaurants that have an obligation to service you. 
  • If we really wanted to help people who felt depressed because they were single, a big step would be teaching them that they don’t need a relationship to be validated and happy, NOT trying to match people up with tax money (honestly, I read it twice, and I still don’t know exactly what it is that you’re proposing). 
  • You clearly have a warped view of women, the civil rights movement, and oppression and you are awful. STAHP.

As was mentioned before, things like this are a big reason women have trouble trusting men. The predators, the Nice Guys™, the creeps, the guys who feel entitled to women, they’re all out there, masquerading as decent dudes. 

reblogging because the “easily imaginable state of being without a relationship and sex against your will for over 6 months” is not oppression, and it’s really telling that there are dudes out there who assume this is oppression for them and other dudes (clearly women, non-binary folk, and gay men are not allowed to have this issue), and further more, oppression on a level akin to that of civil rights, apparently.

The Irish Americans got good jobs, and they even got into office - they became part of the communities. We tried to do that here in England but they didn’t want us. We were just the butt of the joke. We were stupid or drunk. We had to hide who we were. When I went to visit my sister in Chicago I wasn’t surprised that she had got involved in the civil rights movement, but one night we went to dinner with my cousins and they were being racist. They talked about black people the way the English talked about us. I told them they were being hypocrites. I was only sixteen but I couldn’t believe it. They didn’t really take much notice of what I said. Now you see the Irish in England do it too. There is a difference between the Irish Americans and the Irish in Britain, but there’s also a difference between the Irish that remember what it was like, and the Irish with big cars and houses that think they’re better than other immigrants.
I asked my Mum why she felt the culture of Irish Americans differed from that of the Irish in England and this was her answer. I thought it was kind of ace. (via titotansey)

Oooooh, yes I like this. Irish people in general are pretty terrible at admitting our racism.

(via mssswitch)