alimarko

no but really, regarding this post

It’s like Lego can only make non-sexist advertisements if they omit humans altogether. As much as I like this set of ads on its own, it just reminds me how unwilling they seem to be to put little girls in their ads unless they’re playing with the new, grossly-sexist pastel sets with sexualized, much thinner “Lady Figs.” I appreciate the sentiment, Lego, but there are marketing options other than 1.) create a new line and make it very clear that it is ONLY for girls and imply that no other sets are, 2.) include only little boys with your full range of  non-pastel products or 3.) omit children entirely. This little girl played with Legos and I know I’m not the only one. GET IT TOGETHER.


mauthedoog:

baras:

miguel-the-sexy-and-powerful-god:

shibakisses:

jackchasejfc:

every time I use “they” to refer to a single gender-unknown person on Tumblr, another piece of my grammar-filled heart shatters, and the pieces scatter at the bottom of hell

“They” has been a singular pronoun for hundreds of years, you melodramatic dipshit.

well… actually… no… they is plural. people use they when they should use he, she, or it.

dense motherfucker, the pronoun “they” is an english equivalent for the third person indefinite singular and has been for literally centuries. it remains morphologically and syntactically plural therefore you don’t need to shit your little pantaloons at compromising your surely rock solid grammar rules.

i guarantee every fuckin time you’ve ever had to refer to a person of an unknown gender you’ve used “they” subconsciously. (“The post clerk gave me a message for you.” “Oh, what did they say?”) but you only have a problem with it when people specify it as a pronoun for themselves because you’re a shitlord i fuckin guess.

grammarized straight into hell

(Source: ginadanielsjfc)


janetmock:

Something I wrote in solidarity with NBJC - which launched the #BlackTransProud campaign for Trans Awareness Week:
I’m a woman. I’m black. I’m trans. And I’m alive. That’s a radical idea if youreally think about it because trans women of color - specifically black andbrown bodies - are active agents in our own survival despite unbearablestatistics, lack of resources, dehumanizing media stories and exiling from manyspaces. 
And this notion of survival and resistance isn’t new. 
We’ve always been survivors (I bow to Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera as I write this). For me, personally and politically, there’s no separating my womanness, my blackness, my transness from my me-ness. 
I am a trans woman of color who is writing, speaking, loving, fighting, smiling, living and who honestly has no choice but to be exactly who I am and use the blessings I have been given to shed light on the struggles and triumphs of my community. 
To be of service and to be fully me makes me proud.
View Larger

janetmock:

Something I wrote in solidarity with NBJC - which launched the #BlackTransProud campaign for Trans Awareness Week:

I’m a woman. I’m black. I’m trans. And I’m alive. That’s a radical idea if you
really think about it because trans women of color - specifically black and
brown bodies - are active agents in our own survival despite unbearable
statistics, lack of resources, dehumanizing media stories and exiling from many
spaces.

And this notion of survival and resistance isn’t new.

We’ve always been survivors (I bow to Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera as I write this). For me, personally and politically, there’s no separating my womanness, my blackness, my transness from my me-ness.

I am a trans woman of color who is writing, speaking, loving, fighting, smiling, living and who honestly has no choice but to be exactly who I am and use the blessings I have been given to shed light on the struggles and triumphs of my community.

To be of service and to be fully me makes me proud.


BAMF Women of Color tumblr open! →

iamateenagefeminist:

bamfwomenofcolor:

This is a new blog dedicated to bad-ass women of color - from celebrities, to the fictional, to the everyday ones, all of whom are in need of recognition for their everyday badassery.

As women of color and their amazing coolness are not represented on tumblr (and the worlddd) as they should be, this is our small way of sharing the love and pride for kick-ass WoCs, all of whom are being BAMFs while doing their own thing. And if you are a BAMF woman of color, feel free to submit your badassery to us and we will feature you!

We hope you join us in supporting and spreading the awesomeness that is women of color!

This blog is run by my awesome friend Aria, and y’all should follow and support it! 


consensual:

carmenrios:

i am not able to log into facebook until i apologize for doing valid feminist work in the nation’s capital.
in the past few days, presumably, a woman named “kim” (i will not reveal her last name or her email address) reported some of the slutwalk content on my own profile (i am unsure which content, because i have not logged back in) as “offensive” or “harassment.” although she is referring to this past week’s 2012 slutwalk, i was only present in 2011, where i spoke and was therefore photographed.
her message to me, along with her contact information, was included in a facebook “checkpoint” which stops me from accessing my account until i accept that my involvement with last year’s DC slutwalk breeches the facebook community standards and guidelines. (as a point of clarification, valid reasons to be successfully blocked from your profile on facebook include nudity, stealing intellectual property, and inciting or threatening to commit acts of violence. i did none of the listed behaviors within the community standards document on facebook’s website.)
i refuse to click “continue” and re-enter my facebook because i should never have been interrupted. by clicking “continue,” i am apologizing for something i refuse to apologize for, and i am also allowing what occurred to occur again. 
considering facebook tolerates racism, rape jokes, and other offensive material in the name of “free speech,” it is weird to be banned from my own account merely for doing social justice work. but it is at least good to know that i was correct to assume that the only speech freely allowed on facebook is white, cisgender, straight, male speech by individuals attempting to oppress everyone else.
for now you can reach me on twitter or even send me a message here on tumblr. i also have a google plus. 
peace out, zuckerfuck.

remember when our CEO spoke at slutwalk? facebook has removed all proof it ever happened.

Thanks again for silencing women when they speak out about their own oppression, facebook.
“We removed your content because you looked like a slut!”
YEAH, CLEARLY YOU RESEARCHED THE MOVEMENT SO WELL. View Larger

consensual:

carmenrios:

i am not able to log into facebook until i apologize for doing valid feminist work in the nation’s capital.

in the past few days, presumably, a woman named “kim” (i will not reveal her last name or her email address) reported some of the slutwalk content on my own profile (i am unsure which content, because i have not logged back in) as “offensive” or “harassment.” although she is referring to this past week’s 2012 slutwalk, i was only present in 2011, where i spoke and was therefore photographed.

her message to me, along with her contact information, was included in a facebook “checkpoint” which stops me from accessing my account until i accept that my involvement with last year’s DC slutwalk breeches the facebook community standards and guidelines. (as a point of clarification, valid reasons to be successfully blocked from your profile on facebook include nudity, stealing intellectual property, and inciting or threatening to commit acts of violence. i did none of the listed behaviors within the community standards document on facebook’s website.)

i refuse to click “continue” and re-enter my facebook because i should never have been interrupted. by clicking “continue,” i am apologizing for something i refuse to apologize for, and i am also allowing what occurred to occur again. 

considering facebook tolerates racism, rape jokes, and other offensive material in the name of “free speech,” it is weird to be banned from my own account merely for doing social justice work. but it is at least good to know that i was correct to assume that the only speech freely allowed on facebook is white, cisgender, straight, male speech by individuals attempting to oppress everyone else.

for now you can reach me on twitter or even send me a message here on tumblr. i also have a google plus. 

peace out, zuckerfuck.

remember when our CEO spoke at slutwalk? facebook has removed all proof it ever happened.

Thanks again for silencing women when they speak out about their own oppression, facebook.

“We removed your content because you looked like a slut!”

YEAH, CLEARLY YOU RESEARCHED THE MOVEMENT SO WELL.


the-knight-of-papfeels:

zombieskully:

liziraphale:

  • The clothes you wear don’t determine your gender
  • The clothes you wear don’t determine your gender
  • The clothes you wear don’t determine your gender
  • The clothes you wear don’t determine your gender
  • The clothes you wear don’t determine your gender
  • The clothes you wear don’t determine your gender
  • The clothes you wear also don’t determine your sexual orientation
  • The only thing that clothes determine is whether or not you are naked.

(Source: frederickengels)


theweekmagazine:

A South Dakota appeals court ruled this week that doctors must tell women seeking abortions that they could be more prone to kill themselves if they have the procedure — even though the supposed link between abortion and suicide is based on arguably bogus evidence.
Anti-abortion groups cite two studies that found an increased suicide risk among women who had abortions. But the studies did not determine that abortion caused the increased risk. In fact, the American Psychological Association called the link “misleading,” stating that “the best scientific evidence indicates that the relative risk of mental health problems among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy is no greater if they have an elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver [the baby].”
So why are doctors being required to tell women otherwise? 

Because who cares about being honest as long as you get your way and women don’t have control over their own bodies?

theweekmagazine:

A South Dakota appeals court ruled this week that doctors must tell women seeking abortions that they could be more prone to kill themselves if they have the procedure — even though the supposed link between abortion and suicide is based on arguably bogus evidence.

Anti-abortion groups cite two studies that found an increased suicide risk among women who had abortions. But the studies did not determine that abortion caused the increased risk. In fact, the American Psychological Association called the link “misleading,” stating that “the best scientific evidence indicates that the relative risk of mental health problems among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy is no greater if they have an elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver [the baby].”

So why are doctors being required to tell women otherwise? 

Because who cares about being honest as long as you get your way and women don’t have control over their own bodies?


genderedintelligence:

Terrence Higgins Trust have produced free booklets addressing the sexual health and wellbeing needs of trans men and women. 
Direct links to PDF copies of the booklets can be found online here:
Trans Health Matters: Trans Women
Trans Health Matters: Trans Men
Or you can order up to 3 hard copies for free from Terrence Higgins Trust here.
View Larger

genderedintelligence:

Terrence Higgins Trust have produced free booklets addressing the sexual health and wellbeing needs of trans men and women. 

Direct links to PDF copies of the booklets can be found online here:

Trans Health Matters: Trans Women

Trans Health Matters: Trans Men

Or you can order up to 3 hard copies for free from Terrence Higgins Trust here.


When is it going to end?

I was sitting at the bus stop today, listening to yet another girl-on-girl hate conversation. Heard sentences like “I didn’t think she was the sorority girl type” and “I couldn’t live with all girls, girls just cause so much drama” and “she doesn’t dress well enough to be in a sorority.” And I just sat there, getting increasingly tempted to interject my (probably unwanted) two cents.

Femininity is sometimes its biggest critic. And I understand that this is a media- and society-fueled concept, I understand that girls attacking other girls is something that we are taught to do, that we are not generally born with a knack for being hyper-critical to anyone or anything feminine. But we cannot expect things to change if we do not actively seek this change. Why must we critique the choices of women when we don’t know them or have insight into their mind? Why must it be our weapon of choice to criticize a female’s appearance? 

When is it going to end?

Judge a woman based on her personality, judge her based on what you hear her say, on what her political views are, on her favorite books or her opinion of contemporary sculpture or the attitude with which she approaches life. Do not pretend to understand what “type” of woman she is, and make judgements on her based on your prejudice. Resist the urge to critique her appearance before anything else. Do not reduce her to a flat, simple image. Do not attempt to erase her complexity or her story. She is worth far more than that, and you owe her (and yourself) far more than that.


Fuck yeah, feminists!: Reader Submission: Gender Roles and the Media →

fuckyeahfeminists:

Society defines gender roles by images that aid text and help our visually trained minds comprehend the bigger picture. Bathroom signs, for example, sport stick figures for both genders – men wear pants and women wear skirts. The explicitly stated “male” and “female” on bathroom doors, one would think, would be enough to signify the difference, yet we cling to the image without question. As Postman said, the image of television, and other media, presents more than entertainment, it defines “how one ought to live one’s life” (Postman 135).

            Money is a definitive image, made masculine by society and further emphasized by television. Shows like The Bachelor and The Millionaire Matchmaker default wealth as a masculine trait, suggesting that men are still the breadwinners despite small improvements in gender equality, specifically in the work force. A recent study released by Georgetown University revealed that women with PhD’s made as much as men with Bachelor Degrees – the proof is in the statistics, yet still, the image television reflects of society is seemingly modern and socially satisfied. In reality, we are trapped in the social structure of the 1950’s: men still make more money, which in capitalism driven America means men still have more power.

            Family life is another restrictive topic, specifically reserved for women. While it is now acceptable for women to have a career and a family, her family is still the priority, whereas men are exempt from the care-taking task – even then, a career woman without a family is generally unheard of. The stereotype of a husbandless woman suggests that she is undesirable in the eyes of mainstream society, or has no interest in being a wife. The pressure for women, not men, t marry is still prevalent; it is presented as the logical end to a relationship, and almost a right-of-passage into the adult of world. Here, the Barbie mantra applies with a vicious subtext: “Be who you want to be” as long as you’re married, pregnant, and subservient to the men in your workplace and household. This is the image that television uses to define gender roles within a family – and is it any surprise, when men, with the exception of PBS, govern major television networks like Time Warner, CBS, and NBC.

            Politics, too, claims a masculine identity, with a firm belief that only the traditional head of the house can be at the head of the country. Indeed, America can hardly stomach the idea of women in powerful political positions – the only female presidential candidate is Michelle Bachmann, and with her habit of presenting hear-say as fast, and history of negligent fact checking, she makes no attempt to disprove the slander against women in politics. By making a fool of herself, she presents an image to Americans that justifies the stereotype of stupidity as a feminine trait. In 2005, Commander-in-Chief aired for the first time, following the story of Mackenzie Allen, the first woman president. The show received high ratings, but after a winter hiatus, the ratings dropped drastically which resulted in its cancellation. The leech, of course, was American Idol. It is apparent that whether fictional or viable, society finds it difficult to take women seriously in the political realm. Military policy (the Combat Exclusion policy), for example, still bars women from serving in direct combat. This policy, not law, enforced by the Department of Defense, is dispensable, yet the Department insists that women are not qualified for positions on the front-lie. As war is not a formal ceremony, it is difficult to determine where a front-line exists, especially in combat zones like Iraq; if the barriers begin to blur, there is no point in retaining the policy. While it remains intact, women serve in direct combat without credit – in this case, the image is non-existent, and suppressed instead of promoted by television and the media.

Why you need to care about gender roles and feminism.