"Wow how do you leave your house lol" I don’t. We don’t. Your crude jokes about our illnesses and disabilities are not funny. Some of us cannot, do not, leave our houses. Nobody is laughing.
But I am laughing.
—-
What’s supposed to be the deal? Self-diagnosed agoraphobia?
if only we all had inner dolphins
Most Tumblerinas will inform you about their gender in detail, whether you ask or not
^^^
Hi, nice to meet you. I’m a genderfluid sea cucumber that sometimes identifies as a unicorn too. I am autistic and a sociopath. Haha so I don’t care what you think of me. So, what do you think of me? I’m very special I know! I’m so unique you’ll never probably meet anyone like me! What is that? What are my interests or where do I work and such? That doesn’t define me you shitlord! All you need to know about me is how I identify my gender and what my mental illneses are! That completely defines me! Just don’t judge me based on that, okay? Ugh, cishet sum will never understand me!
So I proper called out these two middle aged women earlier because apparently my wearing a crop top and skirt with 80 denier tights is “inappropriate” and “I’m just asking for it” and I must be “such a dirty slut”. So I turned round and said “I assume when you say asking for it…
Also there was applause and the old man gave her 100 dollars.
^^^
that man’s name….. Albert Otherkin
First female black student-president at nation’s most expensive prep school is forced to resign after ‘offensive’ photographs of her mocking ‘typical white classmates’ emerge online
The former black student body president at a pricey New Jersey prep school was forced to resign from her leadership position earlier this year after she posted a series of photos on the Internet, in which she is seen dressed as what she describes to be the typical male, white student at the school.
In the photos, former Lawrenceville School Student Body President Maya Peterson is seen wearing L.L. Bean duck boots, a Yale University sweatshirt and is holding a hockey stick, which she says is representative of the typical ‘Lawrenceville boi.’
In addition to the photos, she added hashtags like ‘#romney2016,’ ‘#confederate,’ and ‘#peakedinhighschool.’
Peterson explains that the photos were meant as a joke in response to complaints made by students about her senior photos, in which she and 10 friends - all of whom were black - are seen raising their fists in a ‘Black Power’ salute.'I understand why I hurt people’s feelings, but I didn’t become president to make sure rich white guys had more representation on campus,' she told the website. 'Let’s be honest. They’re not the ones that feel uncomfortable here.'
Some of Peterson’s classmates, however, didn’t see the humor in her ‘racist’ photos.
'You’re the student body president, and you’re mocking and blatantly insulting a large group of the school’s male population,' one student commented on the photo.
Peterson’s response to the comment only made things worse.
'Yes, I am making a mockery of the right-wing, confederate-flag hanging, openly misogynistic Lawrentians,' Peterson responded. 'If that’s a large portion of the school’s male population, then I think the issue is not with my bringing attention to it in a lighthearted way, but rather why no one has brought attention to it before…'
Both students and faculty members felt the images were offensive, and that ‘it was not fitting of a student leader to make comments mocking members of the community,’ Dean of Students Nancy Thomas told the Lawrenceville student paper.
Peterson’s take on race has irritated her classmates in the past, as well.
In 2012, following the re-election of President Barack Obama, Peterson wrote on Facebook about how proud she was that an African-American was president - and threw in a sarcastic jab at white people.
'As a black and Latino, gay woman in the United States of America, today is a momentous day,' she wrote. 'I’m sorry to all the rich white men who have failed to elect a president that endorses their greed.'
Some of her classmates felt the Facebook post was racist.
'I’m gonna have to assume from your political beliefs and what you’ve said that you do not pay for your Lawrenceville tuition in its entirety,' one student wrote. 'But do you know who pays for that? Yeah, that would be all those greedy white men who actually worked for their fortune, not relied on the government to support them. Just saying.'
Peterson’s family paid full tuition at the school.
Peterson’s getting elected student body president worried many of her classmates, as they believed she was alienating a large portion of the student body with her controversial comments about white classmates
One former student said Peterson’s photos - and overall attitude, ‘violated the spirit of the Lawrenceville community.’
'It was hateful. It wasn’t inclusive,' the student, identified only as David, said. 'When I think of Maya Peterson, I don’t think of someone who is an avid proponent of progress or of inclusiveness. I think of someone who is hateful. She had a hateful spirit.
Lord look at this madness
I SUPPORT MAYA PETERSON!!!!
I have never felt more love for someone that I have never met than I do for this young woman. I thought she would apologize but in the boldness of her reasoning I saw no lies.
Maya Paterson for some public office in the future? Presidency maybe..
Blackface African parties: Silence
Native American mocking parties-Silence
Urban Black culture mocking parties-Silence
Black woman with a hockey stick-OMG REVERSE RACISM!!!
I honestly believe she was making a point and their reaction made her point perfectly.
MAYA PETERSON 2016!
She was basically making a point.
White folks proved her point.
End of discussion.
screw president, can she become empress of Earth.
I have found my queen
This chick has a family that can pay $50,000 a year for her high school. She definitely has a ton of privilege.
^^^
That is the crux of of the matter for me, here she is banging on about White privilege (along with a bunch of other SJWs) yet she comes from a family that can afford huge tuition fees. I’m a white man who lives in one of the whitest parts of Britain but I can guarantee this woman has an absolute fuck-ton more privilege than I will ever have, yet because of her skin-colour she is somehow poor and oppressed?
Oh yeah so also my mom told me that she doesn’t believe that the patriarchy exists or that misogyny is a modern problem
Which explains everything about how she groomed me to be a sacrificial lamb to patriarchy and rape culture
Lmao
Do you ever have that moment where you’re like “I am never going to forgive you for how badly you betrayed me as a vulnerable child that trusted you” with your parents? That’s me.
They’re 24 years old and their still angsting about their mean ol’ parents. Grow the fuck up asshole.
using my leg hair as flint to burn bras bridges and the patriarchy
>Egoraptor and Ninja Sex Party theme
>not supporting the patriarchy
Ninja Sex Party’s act is that Danny is a chauvinist and Ninja Brian is a murderous psychopath. How can you be a fan of you’re all “FUCK THE PATRIARCHY SCREW THE MAN ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER!”
—-
JustLegbeardThings
so torn between like ‘ugh I want that skinny carefree Kate moss look’ but also wanting 2 just be happy and not care it is hard. mad @ myself for being duped by da patriarchy
Da patriarchy is dupin me.
—-
I have a feeling is she did lose weight, it would be because the patriarchy pressured her into it, so it’s kinda lose-lose either way.
Do brutal attacks on women by their husbands or boyfriends surge during the World Cup? According to a May 25 press release by England’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), “cases of domestic abuse increase by nearly 30% on England match days.” The shocking 30 percent figure was from a study prepared and publicized by the British Home Office. Determined to stem the assaults, officials flooded pubs and the airwaves with graphic warnings. “Don’t let the World Cup leave its mark on you,” warned a poster distributed by the West Yorkshire Police. It showed the bare back of a cowering woman marked by bruises, cuts, and the imprint of a man’s shoe. News stories with titles such as “Women’s World Cup Abuse Nightmare” informed women that the games could uncover, “for the first time, a darker side to their partner.”
Many Americans will recall a similar scare surrounding Super Bowl Sunday in January 1993. Newspapers and television networks reported that the incidence of domestic violence increased by 40 percent during the annual football classic. Journalists were soon talking of a “day of dread” and referring to the game as the “abuse bowl.” Experts held forth on how male viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.” During its telecast, NBC ran a public-service announcement urging men to remain calm during the game and reminding them they could go to jail if they attacked their wives.
In that roiling sea of media credulity, Ken Ringle, a reporter at the Washington Post, did something no other reporter thought to do: He checked the facts. He quickly discovered that there was no evidence linking football and domestic violence. The source for the 40 percent factoid was a mistaken remark by an activist at a press conference in Pasadena, Calif. Today, what has come to be known as the Super Bull Sunday hoax, is a staple in discussions of urban legends. Could the World Cup Abuse Nightmare be a copycat fraud?
“A stunt based on misleading figures,” is the verdict of BBC legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg and producer Wesley Stephenson. They recently investigated the alleged link between the televised World Cup games and violence in the home for their weekly program Law in Action. On June 22 — day twelve of the 2010 World Cup — they aired the story. It included an interview with a prominent Cambridge University statistician, Sheila Bird, whom they had asked to review the Home Office study and its finding of a 30 percent increase in domestic abuse. She found it to be so amateurish and riddled with flaws that it could not be taken seriously. The 30 percent claim was based on a cherry-picked sample of police districts; it failed to correct for seasonal differences and essentially ignored match days that showed little or no increase in domestic violence. Professor Bird also noted that improved police practices can lead to increased reports of violence but do not necessarily indicate more violence. A telltale sign that something is amiss in the Home Office is that it also disseminates the claim that “one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence.” That impossibly high figure may be the result of a rather expansive definition of “domestic violence” — which includes not only physical and sexual violence but also emotional and “financial” abuse.
The BBC Law in Action program also unearthed a serious study by the London Metropolitan Police Authority that contradicted the “official” 30 percent finding. But thanks to a sensational media campaign sanctioned by the Home Office, the reasonable and credible findings of the Metropolitan Police went unnoticed.
On June 27, England suffered a humiliating defeat by Germany. A few days later, news stories reported a “shocking” surge in domestic assaults in some districts. According to the Telegraph, “Kent police said it witnessed a 400 percent rise in domestic abuse” on the day of the loss. But as the BBC investigators warned, percentages can be misleading when the raw numbers are small. There were 26 incidents in south Kent on the day of the rout, compared to an average weekend total of six. Newspapers also carried stories of a spike in Lancashire reported by an ambulance service. But, according to Detective Inspector Derry Crorken of the local police force’s public protection unit, “We have not seen a big rise in callouts during or after the football compared to other weekends.” For the time being, excited reports by British journalists on this topic should be discounted heavily.
In the past 17 years, despite occasional efforts, no one has been able to link the Super Bowl to domestic battery in the United States. A major study in 2007, by two University of Alabama researchers, examined 2,387 crisis-call records over a three-year period. The authors also interviewed abused women and shelter staff. Their conclusion: “The widely held belief that more women seek shelter during ‘drinking holidays’ such as New Year’s and the Super Bowl was unsubstantiated.”
Rozenberg and Stephenson interviewed me for their BBC story because I had written about the U.S. Super Bowl fiction in my 1994 book, Who Stole Feminism? Why, they wanted to know, do such myths have such strong appeal? It is easy to understand why the American version resonated so powerfully in 1993. At the time, the “women are victims, men are brutes” style of feminism was all the rage. Many middle-class women — whose chances of being assaulted by their husbands were close to zero — were riveted by ominous pronouncements like this one from Gloria Steinem’s 1992 bestseller, Revolution from Within: “The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man on the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home.” It was in 1993 that the National Coalition against Domestic Violence circulated a brochure claiming that half of married American women would face violence from their mate and that “more than a third are battered repeatedly every year.” The Super Bowl story was a handy bandwagon for this popular but twisted creed.
The motives behind the British scare are harder to fathom. It was not the work of feminist hard-liners but rather of a network of government bureaucrats, social-service workers, police personnel, and public officials — including the new home secretary, Theresa May. History offers many examples of depraved societies pretending they are better than they really are. England, an enlightened and humane country, is perversely fascinated by stories that falsely depict its citizens as corrupt and degenerate. Those behind the exaggerated crisis are not going to recant in the face of mere facts. When the BBC investigators presented Carmel Napier, the deputy chief constable of Gwent, with the evidence that the study she and her colleagues were promoting was specious, she replied: “If it has saved lives, then it is worth it.”
In fact, it does harm. The BBC’s Law in Action also interviewed Davina James-Hanman, director of the AVA (Against Violence & Abuse) Project. She was concerned that the World Cup scare could place truly at-risk women in harm’s way. She explained that a woman in a violent relationship is often eager to blame external factors as the cause of the attacks. “It worries me that their safety planning may be affected by this focus on the World Cup … that she’s maybe getting the message that if she just hangs on until the World Cup is over everything will be okay.” Surely women at risk for violence are best served by truth. By allowing sensational half-truths and untruths to flourish, officials not only channel scarce resources into dubious programs, they also diminish public trust.
There is another serious reason why countries such as the United States and Britain should not exaggerate the victim status of their female citizens. Horrific and systematic abuses of women occurring in other parts of the world demand our attention. In May, while British officials were preparing for the “expected” explosion of domestic battery from World Cup watchers, the Islamic Republic of Iran was granted a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Human-rights activists protested, pointing out Iran’s appalling record of tyranny, cruelty, and injustice to women. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shot back that Iranian women are far better off than women in the West. “What is left of women’s dignity in the West?” he asked. “Is there any love and kindness left?” He then declared that in Europe almost 70 percent of housewives are beaten by their husbands.
That was a self-serving lie. British women, with few exceptions, are safe and free. Iranian women are not. But the lurid posters of women’s beaten bodies and bloody T-shirts (one with the legend “strikeher” emblazoned above a big zero) and bogus statistics give wings to such lies. How that helps women coping with real abuse in Britain, the United States, or anywhere else remains a mystery.
— Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War against Boys, and the editor of The Science on Women and Science.
Important
False statistic on domestic violence published by a governmental body? Oh patriarchy how could you let this happen.
—-
“A stunt based on misleading figures,” is the verdict of BBC legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg and producer Wesley Stephenson.
Seriously, how could this happen. How could this study/statistic get released from a government department.
This woman brought her husband in with her to the store as she shopped for an outfit for an interview. While I was helping her shop around, he had the nerve to say “Women can get away with wearing less formal clothes for an interview. So unfair.” I smiled softly and reminded him that it is even more unfair that women are paid 75 cents to their dollar. His wife gave him a push and grinned at me. I felt powerful, honestly.
too bad you lied to him
I want someone to do a study on salaries for the exact same job positions at the exact same rank/level, in addition to what the initial salary offer was before any negotiation. I’ve heard people explain the pay gap as women tending to choose lower paying jobs; however, I think part of the problem is also that men are taught at some point (I dunno when, Patriarchy School, or maybe at the secret Privilege Meetings) to negotiate for a higher offer whereas most women I know including myself tend to just accept the initial offer.
^^^
Those studies have been done. Women are paid, on average, about 95 cents or more to a man’s dollar if they’re doing the same job for the same hours with the same qualifications.
So there is a gap, but it’s much smaller than most people say it is.
There IS a much larger median income gap, which is consistent with that 77% figure, but that doesn’t control for the above factors: it’s just a comparison of the median income for men vs the median income for women. Career choices are the biggest factor in that gap.
As a man, though, I can tell you that I’ve never negotiated for a higher salary…but then, I have only ever had one job, my current one, which pays everyone in my position nearly $20/hour male or female. Since I was a philosophy major, that’s already more money than I ever thought I’d make, but I don’t think negotiation was an option for anyone trying for this position; it’s a high-turnover position that’ll fill its positions with just about any warm body that applies, so trying to negotiate means they’ll find someone else.
ignore anyone who tells you otherwise.
No white girls?
Lmao I knew it wouldn’t be long until someone tried to make it about themselves. Yes no white girls. Deal with it.
Plus I don’t appreciate blogs that are basically white supremacist reblogging from us, and from what I’ve seen, the whole point of your blog is to erase and/or stereotype POC while calling them ugly, and any positive posts you make are about white people. Don’t reblog our posts, I don’t wanna be associated with your shitty ass blog.
-Allyssa
I fucking hate this “all women are beautiful” bullshit stop denying reality.
^^^
If everyone is beautiful, the word loses all meaning entirely! Some people, most people, even, do not qualify as beautiful. They just don’t. And that’s okay- I don’t qualify as a world class sprinter. In fact, I can hardly run at all! But that’s just not my thing. Just like how a lot of people aren’t beautiful. Their talents lie elsewhere. Maybe they can solve a Rubik’s cube in two seconds or make a killer soufflé.
Being beautiful shouldn’t matter so much. Congrats, you won the genetic lottery. But we shouldn’t bastardize the word by saying everyone is beautiful.
^^^
Sshh, shh, shhh…. Don’t let ANYONE tell you you’re not a world-class sprinter. You ARE a world-class sprinter, even if you never voulentarily move at more than a casual amble again.