scegliere

unknowablewoman:

I don’t particularly care to rehash all of the garbage he spewed on Twitter yesterday, but I wanted to briefly showcase some of the most disturbing messages that Tumblr politics tag editor Alexander Ryking posted on a public forum last night. I just have one question: is this mature, professional behavior? Is this the type of person you want curating your tag content, Tumblr? Reblog if your answer is a resounding NO.

In order, here’s just what we’ve got in the screencap—he says similar things on his personal Tumblr all the time, but I thought it was important to point out that his troubled behavior is now spilling over to other media:

• calling women morons, feminazis and cunts
• equating the denial of “misandry” (a concept that is overwhelmingly rejected by everyone who understands gender politics) to denying scientific consensus
• stating that women who dislike him must have “daddy issues” 
• again with the “daddy issues” thing, which IMO is the most grossly sexist part of this entire tirade
• equating women to dogs
• telling feminists to go die

This isn’t about removing him from the position of editor because of political disagreements; after all, Ryking isn’t a conservative! This is about baseless personal attacks against women specifically (although non-women who disagree with him about “feminazis” have incurred his wrath as well) and for no reason other than they identify as feminists. I cannot stress enough that these attacks take place in an internet culture where being an outspoken, visible woman online will routinely earn you death threats, sexual harassment, and acts of intimidation. Here we have someone completely oblivious to the way his words contribute to that atmosphere, and yet we’re supposed to trust him to edit the official politics tag? How can we believe that this man’s raging misogyny doesn’t spill over into that? It’s absolutely unacceptable.

Slutwalk, Guy Culture, and Ending Violence

quickienewyork:

Slutwalk was easy.

Chanting was easy, meeting up with old friends was easy, and showing my support and solidarity was easy. When I stepped out of Union Square and grabbed a drink at Lillie’s after the march, the hard part started.

Ending rape culture means changing guy culture. It means telling the guy next to me at the bar that his joke wasn’t funny. It means telling a client his behavior is not welcome, and it means telling a good friend at two in the morning that maybe they’re both a bit too drunk to be making good decisions.

I marched in Slutwalk because I believe firmly that men and boys need to hold one another accountable. It’s not enough to be supportive, kind, or even radically consensual. Carrying a sign and showing my face was not enough.

Utah Phillips, the famed radical, tells me that being a pacifist is like being an alcoholic. It’s something I have to struggle with every day of my life; as a white man born into 20th century America I was born armed to the teeth with the weapons of privilege. It’s not enough for me to be peaceful. I have to put down my privilege and refuse to pick it up just because it’s convenient.

Ending sexual violence is exactly the same thing. It means every day I have to resist taking the easy way out. It means it’s up to me to hold friends, neighbors, and colleagues accountable when they inevitably let guy culture pull them along without thinking.

So, now that I’ve marched I have to put the cup down and disarm myself not just when it’s easy, but also when it feels impossible. When I’d rather turn my head or laugh uncomfortably I have to speak up and say no.

Ending rape culture means changing guy culture. As men, boys, and guys, that requires us to struggle every day to change the world around us through our actions.

Slutwalk was easy; it was energizing, and it was moving. Now back to work.

Guy New York

wordsalads:

christiankeyes:

letterstomycountry:

loridorn:

At what point does the need for security eclipse human dignity and compassion?

Yesterday I went through the imaging scanner at JFK Terminal 4 for my Virgin America flight to San Francisco.  Evidently they found something, because after the scan, I was asked to step aside to have my breast area examined.  I explained to the agent that I was a breast cancer patient and had a bilateral mastectomy in April and had tissue expanders put in to make way for reconstruction at a later date.  

 I told her that I was not comfortable with having my breasts touched and that I had a card in my wallet that explains the type of expanders, serial numbers and my doctor’s information (pictured) and asked to retrieve it.  This request was denied.  Instead, she called over a female supervisor who told me the exam had to take place.  I was again told that I could not retrieve the card and needed to submit to a physical exam in order to be cleared.  She then said, “And if we don’t clear you, you don’t fly” loud enough for other passengers to hear.  And they did.  And they stared at the bald woman being yelled at by a TSA Supervisor. 

To my further dismay, my belongings, including my computer, were completely out of sight. I had no choice but to allow an agent to touch my breasts in front of other passengers.  

I just didn’t understand why these agents were so insensitive to the situation. I would have been happy to show her which bag was mine and have her retrieve the card, but she did not allow even that. I have been through emotional and physical hell this past year due to breast cancer.  The way I was treated by these TSA agents added a shitload of insult to injury and caused me a great deal of humiliation.

 I understand the need for safety when flying, but there is also a need for those responsible to be compassionate and sensitive to each situation.  These agents were neither.

I can only comfort myself with the fact that Karma is always circular.

UPDATE: Laughing Squid has a round-up of media coverage on this story.

The TSA: legally sexually assaulting you since this never should have happened ever never ever.

This is absolutely horrible.

stfuantichoicers:

prochoicejacksonville:

coelestinus:

A Culture of Life: Ann Telnaes

But a fetus is more important, right?

Sluts had it coming.

In politics, “pro-life” equals pro-governmental control of women’s bodies, so let’s get real here

aneducation101:

Any political “debate” is really a bunch of moralistic posturing. As much as the so-called “pro-life” camp tries to deny it, the crux of the conflict is not about abortion itself, but about governmental control of women’s bodies.

A governmental ban on abortion means that the government is deciding what happens inside of a woman’s body.

It means the woman has no say.

And it means a lot of scary implications.

Birth control could end up being banned as a consequence, since some people seem to think that “life begins at conception” which would make even the birth control pill illegal. Some people, especially a certain patriarchal legacy from the Roman Empire, seem to think every sperm is sacred, which would make even condoms illegal.

But it goes beyond that. Doctors have determined that drinking during pregnancy can have detrimental affects on the fetus. So do we start arresting pregnant women when they have a drink?

What about smoking? Can a woman who miscarries after smoking a cigarette be jailed for manslaughter?

What is to be considered an unnecessary, even reckless, risk? Riding a bicycle, where you could fall and suffer miscarriage?

What if the woman just has “unhealthy” eating habits? Toss her into prison?

Does the government then establish breeding colonies where women’s behavior and diet are strictly controlled, safely protected from the temptations and dangers of the outside world by razor wire and armed guards?

And what if the government decides that certain genetic lines are undesirable — to many health risks, perhaps, or maybe just “the wrong kind of person”? It has happened before, even in our own country, and not all that long ago. If the government decides on what can happen in a woman’s body, and controls the woman’s body by force of law, then the government has the power and right to force abortions and sterilizations as well. Is that what we want? A kind of fascist breeding program?

It may sound silly or outrageous to you, but these are real implications of giving government control of the womb, the result of simply making abortion illegal.

Why do abortions happen? Because pregnancy entails real physical risk, real livelihood risk, real social risk, which makes an unwanted, unexpected or dangerous pregnancy a very real problem to the woman. How do we reduce the number of abortions to near zero? There are so many ways that have proven track records, but what doesn’t work is government occupation of every fertile woman’s body.

If you are really pro-life, then you will see through the false morality of righteous posing that defines the “pro-life” movement, and you will see the falsity of the claim that the pro-choice majority wants to abort babies just for kicks or to pursue some dark satanic agenda.

If you are really pro-life, then you would support:

• Easy availability of birth control
• Emergency contraception (which is not the abortion pill, by the way, which is another thing altogether)
• Real fact-based sex education for all children who are fertile
• The end of abstinence-only education, which is just wishful thinking (or do you really think that kids pumped full of raging adolescent hormones would not even notice their sex organs if adults did not tell them about it?)
• Stronger laws protecting women from date rape, marital rape and general violence against women
• Elimination of all laws that make rape the only felony where the victim’s own testimony is not enough to convict the perpetrator (and here I’m speaking to you “tough on crime” folks)
• A cultural change to put responsibility for a woman’s pregnancy on the man as well (because she sure didn’t impregnate herself, did she?)
• Free sterilization for women who opt for it (for whatever reason)
• Free pre-natal healthcare for women who cannot afford to have a baby
• Free post-natal healthcare for children and women who cannot afford it
• Affordable healthcare for all
• Elimination of all pre-natal coverage exemptions that insurance companies are getting away with right now
• And many many other policies that empower women to more effectively control their own destinies, rather than empower the government to seize women’s bodies.

honeydrunk:

anarchofeminist:

those three little words…

REBLOGGING THIS EVERYWHERE.

reallyfoxnews:

Andy Levy “apologizes” to Chris Brown.

I”ve been debating posting this one for a while, since it goes against everything I believe in to say I’m 100% with Fox News on this one. Chris Brown should no longer have a career, deserved jail time, and needs some anger management classes. 

To the messages soon to ensue: this isn’t a Chris Brown blog, this is an opinion, I’m sure you disagree, please don’t anticipate a debate.

Thanks, sheepdean.

“Michele Bachmann paid $30 each for 6,000 voting tickets in Iowa and got 4,800 votes, so 1,200 people stole her $30.

leftish:

It’s funny that someone who doesn’t believe in government handouts paid 6,000 people to vote for her.”

~ Jimmy Kimmel

moth-breath:

The typical U.S. historical marker raises more questions than it answers, and many of the signs are rife with errors and bias. Artist Norm Magnusson’s I-75 Project uses the form for a different sort of provocation.

The blog Thick Culture quotes Magnusson on the signs’ sly, Zinn-meets-Banksy appeal:

‘Are they real?’ is a question viewers frequently ask, meaning ‘Are they state-sponsored?’ I love this confusion and hope to slip in a message while people are mulling it over. These markers are just the kind of public art I really enjoy: gently assertive and nonconfrontational, firmly thought-provoking and pretty to look at and just a little bit subversive.

Read more …