Stuff You'll See:
BE ADVISED: Some content is NSFW and/or ranting.
I have a long list of attributes that make me physically unattractive. I’m definitely not conventionally pretty, nor am I simply “easy on the eyes”. In fact, in a line-up with normal, average looking girls, I’m still over-looked by a majority of men. It’s fine. I guess. Frankly I’ve gotten to used to the idea of sleeping alone at night that I don’t think I can put up with a guy’s snoring. HA.
But I think the worst attribute I tote around is the inability to find myself beautiful to begin with. That whole “love yourself” schtick is always easy when talking about other people, but extremely hard to apply to oneself.
Pretty sure I’m only 1 in a billion other women who think the same way too…
holy shit this deserves way more fucking notes
i can’t reblog it enough, please get this through your skulls. i can’t walk home at night past 10 pm without being terrified that every guy that hollers at me is going to follow me home. it’s fucked up. it’s unfair. our culture sucks. we need to fix it. rape is never okay. never. if the rapist is the girl’s boyfriend it still counts. rape is rape. no is no. no answer is no. you shouldn’t beg and plead until someone’s uncomfortable. take the hint. end this bullshit.
I love these campaigns, people think that my ex didn’t sexually assult me because we were together, even though I wasn’t conscious and he did it in front of his friends.
Started by: Emma Stydahar, New York, New York
After our fellow SPARK Movement activist Julia won her campaign to get Seventeen Magazine to pledge to stop altering their models and show more diversity on their pages, we decided to start our own campaign asking one of our favorite magazines, Teen Vogue, to make the same commitment.
We got over 45,000 signatures, were featured on CNN, CBS, and in The New York Times, and we even got a meeting with Teen Vogue Editor-In-Chief Amy Astley. But at that meeting, she told us that we, teen girls, didn’t know what we were talking about when it comes to her magazine for teen girls. She told us to “go do your homework.”
We’ve done our homework. Teen Vogue still falls miserably short of what we’d like to see in a magazine for us: real, unaltered girls of all shapes, races, hair textures, and ability. And they still refuse to make a statement promising to get better. They’ve basically chosen to ignore the fact that the girls who are supposed to be part of their reading demographic are unhappy with their magazine and the message that it sends to girls. So instead of choosing to step down from this campaign, we’re turning to a few of our favorite brands who advertise with the magazine - Clean & Clear, Neutrogena, and Tampax - to ask them who they stand with: real teen girls or Teen Vogue?
Clean & Clear, Neutrogena, and Tampax are brands that are beloved by teenage girls - and they’re some of Teen Vogue’s biggest advertisers. Like us,their mission is to have young girls feel their best. As young women who are concerned about how altered images and never seeing anything on the pages of magazines but thin, white women impact girls’ self-esteem, we want to support companies who want to help girls be happy and confident-and ask for them to support us as well. We’re asking Clean & Clear, Neutrogena, and Tampax to commit to not advertising with Teen Vogue until the magazine makes a commitment show real, unaltered girls of all races, shapes, and sizes.
We’re asking Clean & Clear, Neutrogena, and Tampax to stand with real teen girls as we continue our campaign. Will you sign our petition and stand with us too?
Why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are EVIL MONSTERS
In a vile and disgusting example of 1) the misogynistic extremism that has taken over the Republican Party, and 2) the despicable dishonesty of Republican claims of favoring ‘small government’, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are not only in favor of Outlawing Birth Control, they are in total support of making State-Mandated, Non-Consensual, Non-Medically Necessary Vaginal Probing the law of the land.
For men who think this doesn’t concern them: this is already the law in several Republican-controlled states and if these monsters gain national power, every state will have the right to do this to your wife, girlfriend, daughter, granddaughter, sister, aunt, niece — even your mother if she’s young enough — without her consent and against her will.
Make no mistake: Romney and Ryan are Totalitarian Religious Extremists, the ringleaders of The American Taliban, and it is up to YOU to get the word out to every woman you know — especially women who are not paying attention to politics.
They should be.
The only path forward for women of our nation is the UTTER DESTRUCTION
of this Republican Party.
BOOTS ON THE GROUND NOW!
DFAB folks of any gender really
For anyone who doubts whether this procedure is truly “invasive”, it is.
I had this done (consensually) as part of a larger battery of tests to diagnose pelvic pain (it turns out I’m like my mother and while I do not have PCOS, I am prone to cysts, hence birth control for both that and not being pregnant). Even as a procedure I agreed to and was able to mentally prepare for it was incredibly stressful and painful, and I have no history of sexual trauma. I can’t even imagine knowing I had no ability to refuse this and it’s unthinkable to do this to someone who has experienced sexual trauma.
These laws are disgusting and so is anyone who supports them.
I am so glad I don’t live in America, if someone came at me with one of those I would kill them.
I don’t understand why they think this is okay I don’t fucking understand.
» The Maternity Leave Myth
Hey, American uterus owners: want to be completely put off by the idea of ever procreating? Then read this expose in the NY Post about how many women have gotten screwed by our country’s Stone Age maternity leave policies.
In Canada, you get 50 weeks of paid maternity leave. In England, you get 20 weeks paid. In Mexico, 12 paid. As a matter of fact, 178 countries around the world mandate paid leave for creating a totally new human. In America? Twelve weeks, unpaid, and only if you’ve worked for the company for at least a year, and only if your company has more than 50 employees. And they *technically* have to give you your job back, but as this article proves, your employer can probably find a way around that.
So hey, pro-lifers: where are your voices on this? Where are your rallies and signs to support new moms, instead of expecting ones? Where is there a single pro-life legislator fighting to make it easier to have a baby and keep your job? Where are the “family values” politicians when it comes to actually having a child and raising it?
Not like I ever wanted to shit one out in the first place. But this? Ugh… If I ever decided to become a mother (fat chance), I’d certainly never have it in America.
[Society thinks] rape is not something a man chooses to do to someone; it‘s a natural phenomenon, like the rain or wind; sensible people will take umbrellas out with them and those who don‘t, will get rained on. Rape is presented as something women can avoid, like the rain, but those who don‘t, are a special breed of women apart from all others; something about them meant that nature picked them out to be raped; it wasn‘t something about the rapist that caused them to be raped, it was something about them.
This woman is AMAZING. http://herbsandhags.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/youre-not-like-rape-victim.html (via counsellism)
This is a fantastic break down.
» kreugan: froontherun replied to your post: wow people saying this is not sexist...
froontherun replied to your post: wow people saying this is not sexist and it’s Lana…I’m also bothered by the people stating that female nudity equates a lack of respect for themselves. IDK. It’s bullshit that this is happening but this is also turning into a slightly…
Anonymous asked: “honestly why do girls make such a big deal about their periods? It’s just a bit of blood for few days and then it’s over. That’s nothing compared to being kicked in the balls- a confused male”
Not to mention the fact that most of society will feel sympathetic towards a guy who got kicked in the balls. Heck, even I do (if it was accidental, not in self-defense, guy was a dick, etc.) Women and menstruation? Yeah, typically we’re supposed to keep it amongst ourselves, shut ourselves from the world, and never let on that we’re going through it. Sometimes younger women in public schools are even picked on and degraded for it.
And don’t forget the negative implications of a period: a woman is angry or upset? Well, she’s probably just PMSing! And men don’t ostracize other men for getting kicked in the balls—women don’t either, but here’s some typical male reactions towards menstruation…
Reaction #1: “Oh, you’re actually on your period? EW TMI! JFC DON’T TELL ME THIS SHIT THAT’S GROSS.”
Reaction #2: ‘Oh she’s talking about her period. Que awkward silence! Quick, change the subject! CHANGE IT!’
Either way, they both really freaking suck, but don’t try to compare the two.
» Paul Ryan's Social Extremism
New York Times: The Opinion Pages
August 26, 2012
Mitt Romney, who will be officially nominated this week as the Republican nominee for president, appears to trim his social convictions to the party’s prevailing winds. There is no doubt, however, about where the party’s vice-presidential candidate stands. A long history of social extremism makes Paul Ryan an emblem of the Republican tack to the far right.
Mr. Romney’s choice of Mr. Ryan carried some risks, considering Mr. Ryan’s advocacy of overhauling Medicare, but it has sent the strongest signal of solidarity to those who have made the party unrecognizable to moderates. Strident conservatives had been uneasy with Mr. Romney, but it is the rest of the country that should be nervous about conservatives’ now-enthusiastic acceptance of the Republican ticket.
Mr. Ryan is best known as the face of Republican budget-cutting, though his ideology runs much deeper. For years, he has been a reliable vote against workplace equity for women, opposing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to file wage-discrimination lawsuits, and two similar measures.
The full outpouring of hard-right enthusiasm is based, to a large degree, on Mr. Ryan’s sweeping opposition to abortion rights. He has long wanted to ban access to abortion even in the case of rape, the ideology espoused in this year’s Republican platform. (Mr. Romney favors a rape exception.) Mr. Ryan also co-sponsored, along with Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill that would have narrowed the definition of rape to reduce the number of poor women who can get an abortion through Medicaid.
Besides that, he has co-sponsored more than three dozen anti-abortion bills, including measures that would require women to get an ultrasound first, bar abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia and end federal spending for family planning programs. Though he urged Mr. Akin to end his Senate race last week over an offensive remark about “legitimate rape,” Mr. Ryan has actually co-sponsored more of these measures than Mr. Akin.
“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” he said in 2010.
He also co-sponsored a bill last year to allow employers to decline coverage of birth control if it violated their moral or religious convictions, and his budget would end all government financing for Planned Parenthood while slashing spending on prenatal care and infant nutrition. Mr. Ryan’s record on gay rights is no less egregious. He supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and voted against the repeal of the military’s discriminatory don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy. In 2009, a decade after Matthew Shepard was murdered for being gay, Mr. Ryan voted against a bill named after Mr. Shepard that expands the federal hate crimes act to include brutality based on sexual orientation.
In 1999, he even voted to prevent same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children. In a break with his party, however, he supported a 2007 bill outlawing job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Ryan is one of the most anti-gun-control candidates on a presidential ticket in many years, holding a grade of “A” from the National Rifle Association and opposing a background check requirement for purchases at gun shows.
The crowd at the Republican National Convention this week will faithfully support Mr. Romney’s nomination, but its heart will be closest to the younger man with the more radical ideas standing at his side.
What a douche-canoe.
Women setting women back…
and apparently things are fine and dandy for women
wait wait. Two weeks BEFORE conception.
DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW CONCEPTION WORKS?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY AT ALL?
WHY ARE THESE IDIOTS RUNNING THAT COUNTRY?!
So I’m pregnant in Arizona even though I haven’t had sex in over a year and have no plans to have it any time soon?
I’m moving to fucking Canada.
So let me get this straight…I’m pregnant even before I’m actually pregnant? Does anyone realize what this law implies? If a woman is considered pregnant 2 weeks before conception (before the fetus even exists!) then she could be arrested and put in prison for doing anything that would prevent that “pregnancy” from continuing. That would include taking contraceptives, getting a sterilization procedure, abortion (obviously), and would also include denying sex from her partner. Under this law, every time a woman has her menstrual cycle, she is “killing” a baby. This law basically strips women of ALL reproductive rights. I find it amazing how republicans want to talk about the government taking people’s rights away. Well what do you call this?
So… basically… I’m “pregnant” right now because I may have sex in two weeks and conceive?
… Have those people LOST THEIR DAMN MINDS?!?
What’s even worse… I misread it the first time. I thought it said that the law was two weeks after conception, and my first thought was “women don’t even know that they are pregnant two weeks after conception”.
And then I saw what it really said and my mouth dropped.
Hey guys, you know that medically speaking pregnancies start at your last period? Not your 1st missed period. That’s how medical professionals measure it because it’s easier to measure something you know for certain. It’s stupid that we have to make this a law, and I’m pro-choice, but everyone should have facts.
We were discussing homosexuality because of an allusion to it in the book we were reading, and several boys made comments such as, “That’s disgusting.” We got into the debate and eventually a boy admitted that he was terrified/disgusted when he was once sharing a taxi and the other male passenger made a pass at him. The lightbulb went off. “Oh,” I said. “I get it. See, you are afraid, because for the first time in your life you have found yourself a victim of unwanted sexual advances by someone who has the physical ability to use force against you.” The boy nodded and shuddered visibly.“But,” I continued. “As a woman, you learn to live with that from the time you are fourteen, and it never stops. We live with that fear every day of our lives. Every man walking through the parking garage the same time you are is either just a harmless stranger or a potential rapist. Every time.” The girls in the room nodded, agreeing. The boys seemed genuinely shocked. “So think about that the next time you hit on a girl. Maybe, like you in the taxi, she doesn’t actually want you to.”
If you read NOTHING ELSE today, read this.
My guilty pleasure: Walking Dead
I like the gritty drama that is the show, Walking Dead. You’ve got the anti-social Daryl Dixon, who likes to pretend he’s the lone wolf but inside he’s a true hero. Then of course, there’s Rick Grimes who until very recently was the perfect male role model. Then, of course, you’ve got zombies.
The only real hangup is the blatant misogyny in both the show and the fans. Seriously, can’t we get some strong female characters for once?!? All four “mains” are incredibly stereotypical and two-dimensional that I just want to pluck out my eyeballs.
1. Lori = The dutiful wife and complete hypocrite.
2. Andrea = The terrible tomboy who likes to think her “bad-assery” makes a difference.
3. Carol = Contributes nothing but demands that men lead her around.
4. Maggie = Needs a man to feel validated and not hysterical.
I could write an entire thesis over how under-developed the women are compared to the men. Andrea attempts to redefine gender roles and be a strong individual, but in her exaggerated attempt to be “one of the guys” she actually alienates herself from having any real purpose. It’s like the writing board shat out her out to be the typical feminist character but they failed to understand what true feminism really is. Then there’s Lori Grimes. Oh… Lori. Lori can’t evenfunction without having her husband and son around (sometimes she just can’t even function, period). Most of the time she just nods her head at whatever Rick says then goes about doing the opposite thing. Half the time, her “adventures” are just screaming for natural selection to take her out of existence. She’s even stand up for Rick when no one else will, but by golly! if he actually does what she commands then she gets pissed at him! As for Carol, we can say she just doesn’t get enough screen time to fully develop her character. Yet when we do see her, she’s schmoozing up Daryl and trying to get him to be her big, strong hero/leader. Probably because she’s the stereotypical Abused Woman. Why can’t she grow a backbone and realize she doesn’t need a man at all? And as for Maggie? She’s either too fixated on having Glenn admit his feeeeeelings to her or having hysterical fits to be of any long term use. It irritates me even more because Maggie had the potential to be more than the Damsel in Distress trope. She went to college to learn how to be a sexual woman then needs a knight in shining armor to rescue her from a zombie. Or a hysterical, screaming fit.
WTF? You can be as loyal a fan as you want and rave about how wrong I am. That the women are truly strong and independent given the world they’re living in now. But when you really begin to analyze their behavior, it’s a severe step back in the world’s perception of women.
The Senate on Thursday upheld President Obama’s birth control policy, voting to kill a Republican effort to let employers and health insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives and other items they object to on religious or moral grounds.
The 51-to-48 vote illustrated a sharp divide between the parties and brought to the Congressional forefront the social issues that have roiled the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Over four days of debate, Democrats accused Republicans of infringing on women’s rights and focusing on issues long settled while Republicans accused Democrats of threatening religious freedom and violating the Constitution.
“The Senate will not allow women’s health care choices to be taken away from them,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.
The politically charged fight heated up last month after the Obama administration unveiled its policy requiring health insurance plans to offer free contraceptives for women — a rule that provoked furious criticism from Roman Catholic institutions and some other religious groups. The administration quickly offered a revision that would force the health insurers — not the institutions — to bear the cost.
Still, Senate Republicans tried to seize on the uproar surrounding the administration rule and offered a Senate proposal that would allow a broad exemption for employers, framing it as a matter of conscience as much as contraception.
“The president is trampling on religious freedom,” said Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska.
Democrats saw the issue tilting politically in their favor in recent days and forced the Senate vote even as some Republicans indicated unease about pressing the matter. One Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, joined 48 Democrats and two independents in opposing the plan, days after she announced she was retiring from the Senate. Three Democratic senators — Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — voted for the proposal, along with 45 Republicans. Mr. Casey and Mr. Manchin are up for re-election this year. Mr. Nelson is retiring.
Despite the vote, Congress is not done with the contraception debate. Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that House Republicans also wanted to protect religious employers who object to the requirement for contraceptive coverage.
“It’s important for us to win this issue,” Mr. Boehner said. He did not offer any details about a legislative path forward, but hinted that it would differ from the one tried by Senate Republicans.
Illustrating the political power of the issue, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, moved quickly on Wednesday to clarify a comment that he was against the Republican plan by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. Mr. Romney said that he had misunderstood the question and that he supported Mr. Blunt’s proposal. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. weighed in on the issue during a visit to Iowa State University on Thursday, saying that the administration plan was “screwed up in the first iteration” but that the compromise was the correct approach.
In the Senate, Democrats, defending the new health care law, said the Republican proposal went far beyond contraception and would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected.
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said Republicans were attacking women’s health care as part of “a systematic war against women.”
Mr. Blunt offered the proposal as an amendment to a highway bill. Under the proposal, health insurance plans and employers could refuse to provide or pay for coverage of “specific items or services” if the coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.”
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to reject the proposal. “The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss,” Ms. Sebelius said.
*Click above link to continue reading. Please CLICK HERE to take 10 seconds to thank your senators for voting to protect women’s health & urge them to keep up the fight.
On one hand it’s good for women’s health.
On the other, it’s completely unconstitutional.
It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage.
Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.
Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.
One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.
“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.
The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.
Large racial differences remain: 73 percent of black children are born outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites. And educational differences are growing. About 92 percent of college-educated women are married when they give birth, compared with 62 percent of women with some post-secondary schooling and 43 percent of women with a high school diploma or less, according to Child Trends.
Almost all of the rise in nonmarital births has occurred among couples living together. While in some countries such relationships endure at rates that resemble marriages, in the United States they are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages. In a summary of research, Pamela Smock and Fiona Rose Greenland, both of the University of Michigan, reported that two-thirds of couples living together split up by the time their child turned 10.
Other [women] noted that if they married, their official household income would rise, which could cost them government benefits like food stamps and child care. W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, said other government policies, like no-fault divorce, signaled that “marriage is not as fundamental to society” as it once was.
Even as many Americans withdraw from marriage, researchers say, they expect more from it: emotional fulfillment as opposed merely to practical support. “Family life is no longer about playing the social role of father or husband or wife, it’s more about individual satisfaction and self-development,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.
Money helps explain why well-educated Americans still marry at high rates: they can offer each other more financial support, and hire others to do chores that prompt conflict. But some researchers argue that educated men have also been quicker than their blue-collar peers to give women equal authority. “They are more willing to play the partner role,” said Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist.
Reviewing the academic literature, Susan L. Brown of Bowling Green State University recently found that children born to married couples, on average, “experience better education, social, cognitive and behavioral outcomes.”
*Click above to read the full article
This is one of those, “Well, duh!” articles, but it’s still helpful to see some statistics about it. Doesn’t really answer why children are being born out of wedlock however. Just that they are.
There are quite a few men out there that don’t want to assume responsibility of a child, most of them from recent generations. But then again, there are a few women who feel like they don’t need/want the father around either. What the article has to say on children could never be more truthful: yeah, it fucking hurts the kid more than it does the parent (this is coming from experience).
And not marrying because you still want food stamps? That’s just… wow. I’m not religious, but I do believe there is a sanctity in marriage that is clearly being ignored for the sake of selfishness.
» Teen Pregnancy Rate Hits 30-Year Low
Between 2006 and 2010, the number of unmarried teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 who reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that they’ve had sex dropped below 50 percent. The C.D.C. described this as an actual drop in the number of teenagers having sex; the cynical addition of the word “reported” is mine: obviously the only way for the C.D.C. to determine whether those teenagers were sexually active (and how) was to ask them, and I’ve expressed my doubts about the resulting data.
Now the Guttmacher Institute is backing up those teenagers with hard facts: in 2008, the pregnancy rate among teenagers dropped to its lowest point in more than 30 years. In 1990, when the rate was at its highest, 116.9 out of every thousand girls between the ages of 15 and 19 became pregnant; in 2008, only 67.8 did. Among young women under 15, the pregnancy rate fell even more.
The Guttmacher Institute offers no conclusions about what lies behind the welcome change. For that, a return to those C.D.C. numbers might help: of the teenagers who admitted to having had sex, most reported that they used birth control, even for their “first time.”
Can’t help but feel Oklahoma was left out of that statistic. Either that, or the 116.9 teenagers are all from OK. I see pregnant teens every damn day, half of whom should not be having kids in the first place. If they aren’t pregnant, then they’ve got a shit-tonne of STD’s.