brandomarlons:

I don’t think that people generally realise what motion picture industry has done to the American Indian, as a matter of fact, all ethnic groups, all minorities, all non-whites. And people just simply don’t realise, just take it for granted that that’s the way people are going to be presented and these clichés are just, I mean on this network every night, well perhaps not every night, but you can see silly renditions of human behaviour, the leering Filipino houseboy, the wily Japanese, the kook or the gook, black man, stupid Indian. It just goes on and on and on. And people actually don’t realise how deeply people are injured by seeing themselves represented, not so much the adults, who are already inured to that kind of pain and pressure, but children. Indian children seeing Indians represented as savage, as ugly, as nasty, vicious, treacherous, drunken. They grow up only with a negative image of themselves and it lasts a lifetime. 

Marlon Brando on why Sacheen Littlefeather presented a speech on his behalf during his Best Actor win for The Godfather at the 1973 Academy Awards

(via me-talk-kitty-one-day)

queerpaccino:

justanotherlankyprick:

princess-peachie:

This is super deep…

adventure time is fucking punk.

If I ever have kids, I’m going to show them Adventure Time and they’re going to grow up to be total fucking badasses who don’t take shit from anyone, but who are also really friendly and funny and creative and nice to people who deserve it. This show is amazing.

(Source: sandandglass, via me-talk-kitty-one-day)

taboo-but-tasty:

lydiduh:

In 15 seconds of dialogue Francis Wilkerson sums up what’s wrong with how women are criticized in our society and it’s great

amen

(via apfelgranate)

hey-shoes-on-wrong:

If you can give and want to give, this is a link to help connect a Detroiter who can’t pay their water bill with someone who can. 

Water is a necessity and a basic human right.  Please at least boost.

"To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

— Calgacus, Caledonian cheiftan (from modern day Scotland), on the Romans. Quoted in Agricola by Tacitus.  (via concepthuman)

(via twoplaid)

"One of the most sinister things about normalized racism is you don’t have to have bad intentions to be racist, you just have to remain ignorant."

america-wakiewakie (via newwavefeminism)

(via librariansoul)

tymethiefslongerthoughts:

zubat:

princeburrito:

zubat:

Regardless of it being consensual, BDSM sexualizes violence [normally against women] and you honestly can’t argue that.

I respectfully disagree. 

While I understand how some could argue that BDSM reinforces misogyny, and eroticizes power and violence, I believe that between two consenting adults, the interpersonal dynamic of a BDSM relationship empowers both the dominant and the submissive (regardless of gender). 

And it has to be consenting if it’s BDSM otherwise it’s just abuse. I know many women who enjoy BDSM because it validates their sexual desires and sexual inclinations, and there’s nothing wrong with having a shared fantasy that can be enacted by two (or more) willing people. 

But that’s just my two cents, feel free to feel how you feel; it’s valid either way :3

You just proved my point. If you take away the consent, it’s abuse. 

I’m not saying it’s not empowering to the women who partake in it. I question the men who partake in it as a “dom” simply because we need to evaluate where their desire for dominance over women stems from (and most of the time, it comes from misogynistic tendencies, but that’s a different discussion altogether and I’m not going to discuss that on this post). I’m not saying there isn’t more to BDSM than violence or power. I’m not saying I have a problem with BDSM or the people who participate in it. 

I’m just saying that BDSM sexualizes violence, which it does, and you can’t argue that it doesn’t. 

My two cents. I have several friends in the BDSM community and though I admit that I no longer have that as one of my fetishes, there was a time when I did, though I was always on the fringes, not deep into the hardcore stuff. But I did learn some things, even if there’s a lot I still don’t really understand. 

Yes if you take away consent it could be considered just abuse, but at that moment is also ceases to be BDSM. BDSM REQUIRES consent. BDSM is ultimately a trust exercise between the sub and dom and an exercise in control and finding boundaries. It’s not about abuse for abuses sake. 

I would also put forward that BDSM does NOT sexualize violence. BDSM is a refuge for those for whom violence is already sexualized. These two sentences do NOT have the same meaning. 

I would also note that in my remaining ties with that community, most of the men I know who are part of it… are subs, not doms or a mix of the two depending on the activity at hand.

I think this entire argument postulated by the OP and responder needs more actual knowledge, research and understanding attached to it. And I include myself on that part because like I said, I still have friends in the BDSM community and I was on the fringes of it for a while after my sexual assault. But I still don’t entirely understand everything about it.

And i definitely don’t think that a blanket statement like “BDSM sexualizes violence” is fair or true, and definitely comes from someone with little to no actual experience or knowledge of the subject to which they are speaking.

All I’ll add to this myself is that “BDSM sexualizes violence regardless of being consensual” and “we need to evaluate the male desire to dominate women and its potential misogynistic origins” are two EXTREMELY different conversations which most feminist kinksters I know would have extremely different responses to, and that I have yet to see a serious critique of BDSM that is not extremely erasive and limited in scope with regards to gender/orientation.

cumaeansibyl:

fozmeadows:

scienceofsarcasm:

Evening Post: August 12, 1899.
"She immediately alighted, caught hold of the astonished youth, and gave him a sound thrashing, using her fists in a scientific fashion…”

I would love to know what this means.

I think that might be code for “punched him in the balls with devastating accuracy”.

Boxing is known as “the sweet science” — in the 19th century, to say that a person used their fists in a scientific fashion was generally meant to indicate that they had a knowledge of proper boxing technique.

(via startrekmademequeer)

"In reality, Americans are less likely to move upward from their class of origin than are Germans, Canadians, Finns, French people, Swedes, Norwegians, or Danes. But the myth, fortified with bracing doses of positive thinking, persists. As two researchers at the Brookings Institution observed, a little wryly, in 2006:

“[The] strong belief in opportunity and upward mobility is the explanation that is often given for Americans’ high tolerance for inequality. The majority of Americans surveyed believe that they will be above mean income in the future (even though that is a mathematical impossibility).”"

— Barbara Ehrenreich, Bright-Sided:  How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America (via x09)

(Source: sociolab, via librariansoul)

hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.

So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.

We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 

(Source: babycocodill, via cupcakevandorn)