December 21, 2012
Iowa Supreme Court: Bosses can fire employees they see as an ‘irresistible attraction’

thestaticinhersmile:

princewarblersteenagedream:

thestaticinhersmile:

princewarblersteenagedream:

thestaticinhersmile:

gaysquib:

breakingnews:

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong.

The Associated Press reported that the all-male court ruled on Friday that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage.

More from the Associated Press here.

W. O. W.

I mean, it doesn’t fit as victim-blaming (or does it), but it’s something similar to it.

So instead of the boss keeping his dick in his pants, the employee gets punished for doing nothing wrong.

Wow.

As if it’s something you can help. Dude keep it in your pants. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

Seriously. I’ll be extremely distressed if this doesn’t get overruled. Such fucking BS.

There is absolutely no telling what your boss is attracted to. You’d have to wear a full body sack.

The whole thing is a ridiculous pile of victim blaming bullshit.

Yeah, this doesn’t seem like a ruling that will disproportionately affect women at all. 

SEXISM IS TOTES OVER U GUISE.

(via delirious-bitter-gardens)

December 1, 2012
tallerandblueonline:

stfunithingas:

disneyforprincesses:

glossyglosoli:

fuckyeahfeminists:

feminist-space:

girljanitor:

Steve Bowler tweeted a photo of an assignment that his 8-year-old daughter’s teacher said she did incorrectly. The homework assignment had a list of toys or activities, and the kids were supposed to categorize them based on whether they were for boys, girls, or both, with equal numbers in each box. The assignment takes for granted the gendering of toys, and that there is a “correct” answer to the question of which gender they are appropriate for.
Bowler’s daughter did the assignment differently. After placing 3 items in the “boys” category and 2 in the “girls” group, she made additional boxes to add more things in the “both” column.
But at the bottom, the teacher notes that the assignment wasn’t done correctly. The point of the assignment is to categorize; the implicit message — that boys and girls are different types of people who like different types of things — isn’t questioned. A child sees this list of items and doesn’t gender them in the way the lesson took for granted; the reaction wasn’t to acknowledge her innovation and perhaps question the gendering, it was simply to say she did it wrong.
Bowler, for the record, said he was proud his daughter failed the assignment and just wished she’d done even worse on it.
via sociological images
[some gender-related bullshit removed.]

I’d be at the school having a giant argument with the teacher.



This is gross

it’s been 1,500 years and people still do this shit

“Bowler, for the record, said he was proud his daughter failed the assignment and just wished she’d done even worse on it.”
Considering the context?
Parenting: You’re doing it right.

tallerandblueonline:

stfunithingas:

disneyforprincesses:

glossyglosoli:

fuckyeahfeminists:

feminist-space:

girljanitor:

Steve Bowler tweeted a photo of an assignment that his 8-year-old daughter’s teacher said she did incorrectly. The homework assignment had a list of toys or activities, and the kids were supposed to categorize them based on whether they were for boys, girls, or both, with equal numbers in each box. The assignment takes for granted the gendering of toys, and that there is a “correct” answer to the question of which gender they are appropriate for.

Bowler’s daughter did the assignment differently. After placing 3 items in the “boys” category and 2 in the “girls” group, she made additional boxes to add more things in the “both” column.

But at the bottom, the teacher notes that the assignment wasn’t done correctly. The point of the assignment is to categorize; the implicit message — that boys and girls are different types of people who like different types of things — isn’t questioned. A child sees this list of items and doesn’t gender them in the way the lesson took for granted; the reaction wasn’t to acknowledge her innovation and perhaps question the gendering, it was simply to say she did it wrong.

Bowler, for the record, said he was proud his daughter failed the assignment and just wished she’d done even worse on it.

via sociological images

[some gender-related bullshit removed.]

I’d be at the school having a giant argument with the teacher.

This is gross

it’s been 1,500 years and people still do this shit

“Bowler, for the record, said he was proud his daughter failed the assignment and just wished she’d done even worse on it.”

Considering the context?

Parenting: You’re doing it right.

(via delirious-bitter-gardens)

December 1, 2012
If I didn’t believe that River And Eleven had an Abusive Relationship…I do now.

prettylittleparadox:

A slew of arguments arose after this scene in Angels Take Manhattan:

In which Eleven screams at River, and basically forces her to break her own wrist, because he was in a bad mood. Admittedly, I’m a huge River/11 shipper, and the scene bothered me. Even more so tonight, when I watched the first Angel’s revamp, part two, Flesh and Stone, with a friend who had never seen it before.

Again, Amy is in a tight spot, and the Doctor himself may have to risk his life to save the planet and close the crack in time. So what does he do? Yell at River Song:

And what does she do? She takes it. Just like she does in Angels Take Manhattan. Why? Because this is the behavior she has come to expect from him. And possibly because she values his life over her own. (We know she does, actually. She gave him all of her regenerations, sat in jail for days? months? years? for him, and even eventually dies just to save his life.) Shes so often proclaiming how great a man he is, and even (in AtM) tells Amy to dare not age or show that she’s damaged in any way because the Doctor doesn’t like it.

He screams, unwarranted, at River two times in this episode. And Jeremy pointed out to me, “Do you notice that he talks down to all the women? And he keeps being rude to River and disrespecting her every chance he can get.” Give the episode a rewatch. It’s true. It angers him whenever she displays intelligence larger than his own. Anyway, this is all very problematic.

Even more so than the fact that the Angel’s had entirely new ridiculous rules, and this entire episode is an inverted copy of Silence in the Library. i.e, the books were a forest and here there is a forest on the ship and how the Angel’s talk(?) using Bob’s voice, just as the Vashta Nerada spoke with the voice of the dead crew members. And of course, River Song, always a step ahead.

(via delirious-bitter-gardens)

November 28, 2012
Sign the petition to remove James Gunn as writer and director of “Guardians of the Galaxy”

tallerandblueonline:

stealyourshiny:

goddessofcheese:

lgbtlaughs:

He should be removed for his incredibly misogynist remarks against many of the female and male characters from the Marvel comics. See that article he wrote [here].

tweet here w/ link to petition that you can RT and get the word out

well done marvel another winner

32. Batwoman - This lesbian character was voted for almost exclusively by men. I don’t know exactly what that means.  But I’m hoping for a Marvel-DC crossover so that Tony Stark can “turn” her.  She could also have sex with Nightwing and probably still be technically considered a lesbian.

Less than 3k signatures. I don’t want this guy to be writing for any movies, let alone one I want to see.

At this point, this creep at the helm is one more reason for me not to bother with it.  (The fact that it’s not the 1969 team already makes me less favorably disposed.)

(Source: bourbonandbullets, via delirious-bitter-gardens)

November 21, 2012

tallerandblueonline:

republiccityobsessed:

sailorswayze:

AM I RIGHT LADIES

EVERY FUCKING TIME

In loudest din or hush profound,
My ears catch evil’s slightest sound.
Let those who toll out evil’s knell
Beware my power: the F-Sharp Bell!

…oh, I’m sorry; did you want the one for people with eyes or something?

(via delirious-bitter-gardens)

November 15, 2012
Geekrage and the World Outside the Internet

tithenai:

So a relatively well-known comics artist, Tony Harris, has taken his dignity in both hands, placed it gingerly on the floor, and then jumped up and down on it while flinging filth into the wind like a monkey. I don’t want to talk about him. Other people are talking about him. I’m sure people will be talking about him all week. I am heartened to see all the comics people I know — fans and creators alike — staring at him in confusion and condemning his words and behaviour.

What I want to talk about instead is what happened a couple of hours ago, as I was on my way home.

I was standing at the bus stop in front of Chapters, on Rideau Street, opposite the Rideau Centre. I had just missed the 9:00 PM bus, and was waiting for the next. As I stood there, idly gazing across the street, I became aware of a young woman very slowly walking into traffic.

She was walking with what looked like calm deliberateness. I had a moment of wondering if she was high, since she wasn’t pausing and looking around as she walked. She was staring straight ahead, clutching a tall cup of coffee against her chest in both hands. As I looked at her, concerned about the fact that there were cars zipping along around her, I became aware of the fact that a man was following her out of the Rideau Centre.

He stood by the door to the food court, shouting things at her. He’d stand, shout, then look around, duck back inside behind the glass door, staring at her, and then open the door and lean out and shout some more. She crossed the street. I could see she had tears on her face, though her mouth wasn’t moving. She passed me, pressed her back against the wall of the Chapters, and continued staring straight ahead, occasionally lifting her cup of coffee to her mouth without taking a sip.

I looked across the street to the man. He was still hanging around that door. In fact he was kind of flattened against the door handle on the inside, staring through the glass. I stared back at him. Eventually he noticed I was looking at him, made eye contact with me. I kept looking until he looked away. I wanted him to know someone was watching him.

I could feel adrenaline starting to surge as I watched him. Everything about his body language had this air of dangerous indecision about it. I knew he’d be crossing the street eventually. I knew he was gauging how busy the street was (very — thank you, STO buses, for being so few and far between) while watching her, debating whether to come out and cross the street or not. I played scenarios through my head. I debated calling the police.

I kept trying not to look at the young woman. I became aware of the fact that no one was looking at her. And I figured that maybe even doing the wrong thing would be better than doing nothing at all. So I walked up to her and asked if she was okay.

“Oh,” she said, and instantly smiled this apologetic smile, this I’m sorry to be such a bother smile, “I’m fine, thank you.”

“Are you sure? Is there anything you need?” And here I felt myself falling down this rabbit hole of inadequacy, of unpreparedness, of the vast gulf between propriety and what I wanted to say, which was I will fight and destroy this person for you, I will call the police, I will make sure he doesn’t hurt you, and the simultaneous realisation that I had the power to do none of those things, because even calling the police would place demands on her that maybe she would not want, and all I could do was offer.

As she shook her head, still smiling, face still wet, I said, “I’m sorry, I know it’s none of my business, but he has no right to talk to you like that.”

And she said, “yeah, we haven’t been getting on so well lately. But thank you. Really, thank you.”

And I had nothing else to do and nothing else to say, but I stood there staring him down from across the street and contemplating the best angle at which to stab someone with a hairstick at close quarters.

He crossed the street as my bus approached, as all the people on the sidewalk began piling in. At that same moment I heard the young woman he was approaching talking on her phone. He was getting really close, not touching her but crowding her, while she ignored him and talked very loudly into her phone, saying “he was being a total jerk, he threw me up against the wall,” and at that point I was on the bus and asking for a transfer and trying to listen and watch, and saw that she was getting on the bus, too, and so was he.

The bus was crowded. I had to move toward the back. People shifted around and I saw the young woman sit down next to someone with a couple of other people standing near her while the man pursuing her hunkered down next to her, looking very intense and being way too close, and eventually — I couldn’t hear what was being said by either of them — he backed off and moved to a different seat. One right in front of me.

He was very pale. He had a tattoo of the word “Karma” in a cursive script over the knuckles of his left hand. He had tattoos of praying hands and other words on his neck. He had a mustache, short sandy hair under a baseball cap with a turquoise bill. He had a thick red watch on his right wrist. He wore a bulky white sweatshirt over baggy dark jeans, and had two scabs at his hairline. I found myself memorizing these details as I stared at him, wondering if he’d only gotten on the bus because she did, wondering if she’d only gotten on the bus because she saw him crossing the street, wondering what I could do, if he was going to follow her until they were in a remote place, wondering what I could do.

My street came up and I got off the bus. I walked into my sister’s house and railed at my brother-in-law about how I hated not being a superhero, how I hated not being able to do anything, how I hated seeing scum like that get away with their behaviour with the sanction of people around them too uncomfortable or scared to do anything. I railed against not being powerful, against not having the strength or skill or conviction to prevent violence.

And you know, this has nothing to do with Tony Harris, except that in my mind it’s all of a piece. Hating women, hating their activities, hating the movement of their bodies, shouting at them on the street or on the internet, preventing them from enjoying conventions or comics or a cup of coffee. I had been thinking of Tony Harris before I left the house, and I was raging at Tony Harris in my head while I saw this man staring — hatefully, always angrily and hatefully — at this woman who wouldn’t open her mouth to cry, who looked apologetic because I noticed her, and I am thinking of Tony Harris now, even when I don’t want to talk about him, because I am always, every day, having to think and talk and deal with the fact that Tony Harris and people who are like him and agree with him exist.

It’s all the same thing.

(via delirious-bitter-gardens)

October 17, 2012
Gender Differentiation in Conversational Styles

desliz:

None of the men I’ve spoken to believe me when I point out that women don’t talk more than them and that we don’t interrupt them with our “banter.”

Seriously we don’t.

According to a study conducted by psychologist Don Zimmerman and sociologist Candace West in their “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation,” study.

“…males interrupt females far more often than they interrupt other males - and much more often than females interrupt either sex.”

In fact, “in mixed-sex conversations, men ‘hold the floor’ more of the time than women, even when the women have higher status…” (pg. 210)

Deborah Tannan, a sociolinguists in the 1990s, did a study where she recorded two-and-a-half hours of conversation, noting that, “…men often do dominate their conversations with women by interrupting.”

Dominating conversations doesn’t stop at interrupting, even “stony silence,” is a pass for this. How? She gives an example:

“…she cit[es] a dialogue between a husband and wife in Erica Jong’s novel, Fear of Flying. Bennett, the man, remains stonily silent, while with mounting misery his wife Isadora begs him to tell her what she has done wrong. When he finally tries to leave the room, the scene ‘ends with her literally lowered to the floor, clinging to his pajama leg. But the reason his silence is an effective weapon is her insistence that he tell her what’s wrong. If she receded into silence, leaving the room or refusing to talk to him, his silence would be disarmed.” (pg. 211)

This obviously, can be dismissed as an exaggeration. It is, after all, a reference taken from a fictional account but also points out something that rings true: How interactions are defined by the participation of all parties involved. For starters, patterns of speaking and conversation styles taken on by most women usually contain “frequent use of qualifiers or hedges that decrease the assertiveness in the statement,” we also use what linguists Robin Lakoff calls: “empty” adjectives - adjectives that do not have connotations of power.

Other assessments show that it IS typically women who ‘hold onto’ men, in a very figurative way, when we converse with them. We are usually the one’s that try to keep the conversation going.

Pamela Fisherman, a sociolinguists who analyzed 52 hours of couples amongst themselves, concluded that women “work harder” to keep conversations flowing. In our attempts to do so, we are more likely to use tag questions (e.i: “phrases that can be used to obligate one’s partner to reply”), we give encouragement to continue a conversation and force interests more often to ensure the man knows we are being attentive.

In those moment when we DO initiate a conversation on a particular topic, they fail 64% of the time. In comparison to the men on the tapes whose topics successfully carried 96% of the time. This means that, “women had to keep bringing up new subjects all the time and mostly they fell flat.” (pg. 209)

The most notable way that men killed conversations was something as trivial, as minimal, as saying, “Um,” when the woman had finished speaking. The woman’s response? They “pursued whatever subject the men seemed willing to talk about.” (pg. 210)

What does this all come down too? It confirms a few things. 1) In mix-gender conversations, women typically, put the concerns and interests of men first. 2) In mix-gender conversations, women still come across as less assertive and even, less convincing. (“studies have shown that the tentative style that women often use makes any speaker seem less convincing and believable,” and this becomes an issue when it trickles into work place perceptions, adding another layer to the glass ceiling: “Women [who] were not convincingly powerful in their style of speaking…were not put into positions where they must present themselves powerfully.”) 3) Men interrupt women more in conversations and all-in-all, dominate these conversations. In one way by the conditioned leeway women usually give them (e.i: we are expected and trained to be more polite and thoughtful of the feelings of others, this slips into conversation style as well. Lakoff specifies that we use “overly proper grammar and excessively polite speech,” most of the time). At the opposite end of the spectrum, men are more likely to cut off women through socialized feelings of entitlement a.k.a, a manifestation of male privilege.

[The trippy thing about “privilege” is that many privileged people cannot identify it until it is pointed out to them and when it is, it is usually met with hostility because their power and the cultural advantages the society gives them is being attacked. In context of these studies, it has to do with how the opinions of men are more valued, thus most men grow to internalize these beliefs and this is externalized through putting their views above that of women’s].

For the guys: You may not notice you’re doing it, but try to get in-tuned to how often you talk compared to how often the women in your life talk when they are conversing with you. Whose topics carry on the longest? Who interrupts who the most? Do you give unwarranted encouragement through verbal cues or body language? (e.g: nodding your head, giving “ahuhs” or throwing in tag questions). When awkward silence enters the conversation, whose the first to break it?

Experiences will differ from person-to-person. But all these studies, from the Fisherman and Tannen’s tapes to Lakoff and Kramarae’s observations (Dr. Cheris Kramarae pointed out that these speech patterns are also cross-cultural), there should be a gender-specific pattern to the conversation styles.

But at the end of the day: No, we do not talk more than you when we are talking with you.

Spencer, Metta et al. Foundations of Modern Sociology: Seventh Edition. “Gender Roles.” Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., 1996. (pg. 209-211)

I have literally started yelling at my male coworkers when they interrupt me, because it’s the only way to get them to stop. I’ve also had to do it for other women, because if they try to nicely imply that they would like to say something, they just get steamrolled. Giving men stern warnings that I’M NOT DONE before I pause to take a breath or let someone else reply is also useful, because that forces them to actually listen to what I’m saying and look for a stopping point instead of vaguely processing the gist of it and blurting out whatever they think is relevant, especially if they think it makes them look smart.

tl;dr men are more untrainable than dogs

(Source: gynocraticgrrl, via chickwithmonkey)

October 1, 2012
A note on the dictionary

So you have all these sociologists and bloggers and stuff, and they’re all telling you racism is the combination of prejudice with power. And you go, no, racism is prejudice based on race. That is the word’s definition! Just look at the dictionary!

That is Mirriam-Webster and it says nothing about power or privilege. So, neener neener!

A few things - 

1. That definition was written in 1936. 

2. It is a really important thing to define your terms, and in a way arguing over definitions can seem really silly. Words are made up! They mean whatever we agree they mean. So when someone says “this is what I mean by racism” and someone else says “no that’s not what it means, it means this” it can seem counter-productive. But sometimes it’s important to pay attention to where the definitions are coming from, and how qualified a person might be to describe a word. Words may be made up, but like money (which is also a made up concept) they are INCREDIBLY powerful and real. If one definition is coming from educated people in the subject that word is encompassed in, in combination with people who have the most direct experience with the thing a word is trying to describe, while another definition is coming from those who are least likely to experience the thing described by the word and most likely to benefit unfairly from getting to define it, that is worth being critical of. And when an expert or a group experiencing oppression goes, “look, when I talk about racism, this is what I mean” you don’t get to then accuse them of being ingenuous or wrong when they use the word the way they’ve defined it and the way you know they are using it. Or at least, you don’t get to do that without getting a whole lot of people correcting you.

3. This is the definition for the big bang theory in Mirriam-Webster

and it is wrong. 

The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion, it was a rapid expansion. And it didn’t start from a “single point”, it started from a gravitational singularity.

Any amateur astronomer, not to mention the degreed and Nobel-winning experts, could look at that definition in the dictionary and go “No, we’re the people who defined this term in the first place, we know it better than anyone, and that is not what it describes. You’ve oversimplified to the point of being inaccurate.”

So the dictionary is not the impartial font of all knowledge, or even all definitions. The dictionary can be, and often is, wrong. It is usually outdated and created by linguists, not scientists, sociologist, psychologists or otherwise. So it’s going to mess up. 

So maybe if you are looking to define a term, you should be willing to talk to the experts in an area if they disagree with the dictionary, because there’s a good chance they know more about this than you do. 

September 6, 2012
How Moffat Ruined Doctor Who For My Little Sister

chickwithmonkey:

stfu-moffat:

[DOCTOR WHO SPOILERS AHEAD]

Submitted by holycheeseandcrackers 

Right, so, anyone who follows me knows that I am Not A Moffat Fan.

I have absolutely no expectations or high-hopes for the new season of Doctor Who, (he’s put me right off Sherlock, I probably won’t even watch the new season of that), and to be honest, I am exhausted with pointing out his poor writing, his use of queers as punch-lines or to ‘sex things up a bit’ and his horrendous portrayal of women. Not to mention the fact that he has utterly destroyed a show that was a part of my childhood, hugely important to me, and influenced my further explorations into fantasy and sci-fi. I have made and reblogged countless posts about how disappointed and angry I am, and at this stage I really just feel like ignoring  everything until someone more competent replaces him.

I can remember the exact moment that I realised how bad the writing in Doctor Who had become:

“I don’t get it, one minute she wants to marry you, the next minute she wants to kill you!”

“She’s been brainwashed, it probably makes sense to her. Plus, she’s a woman. Oh, shut up!”

That scene was like two slaps in the face for me. First I am told that the Doctor (my Doctor) now considers my sex to be irrational and over-emotional. Then, after that, I am told that I am not allowed to complain about this. I am not allowed to say anything. I am told “Oh, shut up!” in manner which suggests that if I protest, I clearly just don’t have a sense of humour.

By the Doctor.  The Doctor said that. I can’t even imagine 10 or 9 saying anything like that. It was like the Doctor had become Moffat’s mouth-piece.

After that scene, I literally just sat there, practically in shock, going Oh, wow. That one cut deep. Oh wow that was bad.

So when I watched Asylum of The Daleks, I couldn’t even be bothered. I could not. Even. Be. Bothered. I watched as the pointless, nonsensical plot meandered along, not even able to gather the strength to wonder

  • Why the hell there are suddenly shitloads of Daleks,
  • Why the Doctor has a new nickname (The Predator) that is also apparently age-old that we’ve never heard of,
  • How Skaro has magically appeared again,
  • Why Moffat thinks we all have the attention span of five-year-olds (a continuing theme)which means he has to break up an important couple off-screen and then BOOM reunite them in the same episode before it even sinks in and we can actually Give A Fuck (Again, a continuing theme – Moffat, I am not going to Give A Fuck about Mels if you cram her down my throat in a montage, and then shoot her, and then have her be River Song all in the space of ten minutes),
  • Why Amy’s only concern with the whole children thing is ‘oooh poor Rory’ and not ‘actually I was trapped by a freaky cult and forced to give birth against my will so yeah, no, won’t be doing that again’ – Seriously, when she said “I can’t have children” I IMMEDIATELY assumed she meant that it would be mentally too traumatic for her.
  • Why the hell Moffat thinks he can smugly claim that he represents queers in the show when he keeps pulling shit like “I went through a phase”  and then has the character say that they only mentioned their girl-on-girl experience because they’re flirting.
  • How the fuck Rory thinks that it is healthy, and not at all passive-aggressive to say “I love you more! We both know it!”. Seriously, that is some fucking Mr. Nice Guy TM behaviour right there. I previously liked Rory, though he had his flaws (e.g. his constant inability to trust Amy when it came to the Doctor), but that was a disturbing insight into the way his mind works. He clearly ‘keeps score’ of the things they both do for each other, and that is just wrong. 2,000 years, Rory? You weren’t ASKED to wait. You didn’t HAVE to. But now you’re going to hold that over Amy’s head as Proof I Love You More And You Can Never Top That forever? After everything Amy has been through? Jesus.
  • Plus there was the weird implication that if Amy did love Rory less, that means she has less love in her for the Daleks to erase. So if she can’t love Mr. Super Perfect Rory, she can’t love anyone? What about her family, her friends? Get over yourself, Rory.
  • So many other things. Too many other things.

And to be honest, I wasn’t even going to bother complaining about it. I am just shit sick of Moffat, and his failure to listen to any criticism whatsoever, and his brushing off of the concerns of the show’s fans.

But then something happened that has made me very angry, and I feel the need to share.

Read More

this is, i think, the worst thing about moffat. he has a lot of bad (A LOT) but the really key thing for me is that i, who am not a rich and famous tv writer/producer, can see the flaws. an 11-year-old can see the flaws. SO FUCKING MANY PEOPLE SEE THE GODDAMN FLAWS, and yet moffat’s shit gets aired without anyone telling him, “yo dawg, this is flawed to hell and basically, this is NOT what doctor who is supposed to be about.” if i can write a better story than the guy who is now in charge of the show, that guy needs to go elsewhere. i don’t know how it happened that nobody who now works on the show has any input, but i think it sucks, and i think moffat has poisoned something that used to be wonderful.

God, reading all of that broke my heart. 

What’s sad is how much I want to enjoy Doctor Who. So many people treat it like people who are upset or underwhelmed are going into it looking for things to get mad about. But that’s not true. I go into every new episode hoping that this will be something wonderful and inspiring and fun. That maybe this episode will be the episode that turns the series around and sets it back in a better direction. 

And, even though I like a lot of pieces in almost every episode, pretty much all any new episode does is disappoint me. 

That really makes me sad. 

August 20, 2012
"[TW: For rape]
Such overblown rhetoric disguises the operation of a double standard in contemporary society. On the one hand, the consumption of alcohol is viewed as making women MORE responsible for their own rape: by choosing to get drunk, women are deliberately increasing their risk and should be prepared to face the consequences. On the other hand, male consumption of alcohol is viewed as making them LESS responsible for their actions; by choosing to get drunk, men increase the chance of inappropriate behaviour and should not therefore be required to pay the price for their actions."

Joanna Bourke- Rape: Sex Violence History (via girlofgallifrey)

This is something that I have been thinking about. YAY PEOPLE PUTTING WORDS.

(via joans-own-words)

(via adventuresofcomicbookgirl)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »