Posts tagged equality
11:33 pm - Fri, Aug 17, 2012
32 notes
1:33 am - Sat, Jul 14, 2012
28 notes



Remember that incident in Michigan?  And all the response that followed?  Well, we’ve been ignored.  Senator Jones says he’s continuing with his plans of passing House Bill 5711, and it’s been said that this bill is the nation’s worst.  It’s 45 pages of oppression.  Want to stop it?  Join us as we take over the Capitol.  You can RSVP on Facebook.  Can’t make it?  Find a senator of Michigan or donate to the cause.

We can’t let another state fall behind.

Signal boosting for anyone it concerns.

(Source: stfuprolifers)

10:14 am - Tue, Apr 10, 2012
2,263 notes


Right, apparently people STILL don’t fucking get it when it comes to porn.

If I choose to make porn (which I am choosing to do, incidentally), or if I choose to be an escort (which I did, once upon a time), I am not ‘selling myself’. I am not for sale. My body, my mind, my personality… these things are not for sale. What is for sale, is the option to look at my body, or interact with it. If I fuck somebody, or somebody takes a naked picture of me, I’m not losing any part of myself. No part of me has been taken in exchange for cash, just an image. If you take a photo in an art gallery, nobody’s going to accuse you of stealing the art work. If you touch a statue, and walk away from it, you’re not taking part of it with you. It’s the same for my body. If you see it, or touch it, no part of me is lost, no part of what makes me who I am is changed.

And then we come to the assumption that I’m ‘degrading’ myself in some manner by banging people for cash. Well, I’m not. I felt more degraded working minimum wage in McDonalds than I ever do when I’m taking naked photos to put online, or when I fuck random people for free (yeah, I’m a big ol’ slut, your point?) or when I’m signing up to do a screen test with a porn company. No branch of sex work or or sex as a hobby seems to be capable of making me feel degraded. And if I don’t feel degraded, then you don’t get to tell me I feel degraded, because you are not in possession of a greater understanding of my emotions than I am.

Your judgments on sex workers are contributing to the lack of safety evident in the mainstream porn industry, they are contributing to a continued ban on prostitution, making the lives of sex workers really fucking unsafe in many circumstances. By judging sex workers, you are contributing to a system that means if a sex worker is raped, nobody cares. If a prostitute is murdered, it takes about 5 more killed before the police bother to investigate. Whether you judge sex workers as bad people or as objects of pity, you’re harming us.

Do not tell me what I am allowed to use my body for and how I am supposed to feel when I go outside of that.

(Source: 2ndversesameasthe1st, via goldenheartedrose)

9:18 am - Wed, Dec 21, 2011
36 notes

Yes, actually…Ron Paul IS responsible for those newsletters…


Yes, actually…Ron Paul IS responsible for those newsletters…

posted at 11:49 am on December 20, 2011 by

As Ron Paul supporters continue to have a collective orgasm at the thought that America’s Greatest Patriot may win the Iowa caucuses, pretty much everyone who doesn’t support him, on both sides of the aisle, is bringing up those newsletters of his. Sensible enough. Every time a candidate starts showing an advantage, something comes out to torpedo them. In Paul’s case, it’s something we saw last time around. However, its age, contrary to the opinions of some, doesn’t dilute the validity of the claim.

The primary argument that most Paul supporters seem to offer up is that Two First Names denies having written the material, and that his name was simply a branding on the newsletter. The fact that he was listed as editor on these publications weakens that argument from the start, but the real pressure point is from the Dallas Morning News, May 22nd, 1996:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

He also wrote that black teenagers can be “unbelievably fleet of foot.” […]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character … come and talk to my neighbors.” […]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter’s toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. […]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. […]

“If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.

How do you take statements like “95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” out of context, unless you’re addressing such assertions in a critique of those who make them? The links I provided above provide several more articles that back up this point, but I think one is sufficient to demonstrate that Paul, in fact, defended the statements made in these newsletters, with the same old lame political rhetoric employed by most modern liberals, after being caught saying stupid crap.

Now, let me pre-address a few expected counters to this.

You can’t trust the media! Fair enough, but how else are we to find out what Paul’s history was regarding these newsletters? We have to use what’s available.

He never actually says in the article that he wrote anything! His words are specific enough that he is defending the content. Regardless, his statement that “these aren’t my figures” also provides the implication that the interpretation of the figures are his own.

And now, the big counter I expect: He hasn’t said anything like that in recent years, so it doesn’t matter.

Then why not vote for Mitt Romney? I’ve heard the exact same argument from Romney supporters. Multiple times I’ve been told “he hasn’t changed his positions since 2005“. News flash: when you have to command people to ignore a politician’s history in order to defend duplicitous, reprehensible, or contradictory behavior, your candidate sucks.

Now, that isn’t a huge surprise, given the rest of the 2012 GOP roster. I’m without a candidate that I can support, sadly. From a domestic platform standpoint, Paul is pretty damned attractive as a small-government pro-liberty conservative. However, the main apprehension that I and most other conservatives find with the guy is his attitude towards Israel, and the propensity for attracting the support of groups like 9-11 truthers and white supremacists. Supporters have also argued that a politician can’t control who takes a liking to them, and for the most part, that’s true.

However, when you have newsletters that spew the same garbage that these Emmy Award winners live by, you’re defending them one minute, and pretending they don’t exist the next…how can we trust you?

(via brosephstalin-deactivated201212)

5:11 pm - Fri, Dec 9, 2011
98 notes
Men: Stand in solidarity with women. Women, if you were born female, you were born on a battlefield. You will be punished for even saying that out loud, but the grim truth is you’re going to be punished no matter what for the sin of being female. Battering is the most commonly committed violent crime in the United States. That’s a man beating a woman. Globally, half of all women will experience life-threatening violence from a man. Half. That’s more hatred than I can comprehend. Right now, that battlefield is such a slaughter that we can’t even collect our wounded.
5:41 pm - Thu, Dec 8, 2011
224 notes
I’m very concerned about this very divisive rhetoric the president is using when he continues to talk about ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ and this thing that I think is really contrary to the principles that I mentioned, as far as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Representative Allen West (FL-R)

GOP 2012: Equality and Fairness are Anti-American


(via stfuconservatives)

(Source: stfuconservatives, via randomactsofchaos)

9:55 am - Tue, Dec 6, 2011
158 notes

Live by advertising, die by advertising



A beer company, Molson, came up with a cunning plan. Their market is primarily male, so they bought ads in women’s magazines, not to broaden their market, but to set up a ploy to appeal to men.

Ad placed in Cosmo:

Ad placed in Playboy:


As you read this, women across America are reading something very different: an advertisement (fig. 1) scientifically formulated to enhance their perception of men who drink Molson. The ad shown below, currently running in Cosmopolitan magazine, is a perfectly tuned combination of words and images designed by trained professionals. Women who are exposed to it experience a very positive feeling. A feeling which they will later project directly onto you. Triggering the process is as simple as ordering a Molson Canadian (fig. 2).

Extravagant dinners. Subtitled movies. Floral arrangements tied together with little pieces of hay. It gets old. And it gets expensive, depleting funds that could go to a new set of of 20-inch rims. But thanks to the miracle of Twin Advertising Technology, you can achieve success without putting in any time or effort. So drop the bouquet and pick up a Molson Canadian…

For those who argue that it’s just a funny ad: OF COURSE, this ad is manipulating men. It won’t, by intent, convince women to buy Molson beer. The ad campaign is targeted entirely at men, and it works because there are a lot of men who will laugh at an ad that makes out women to be stupid and easily swayed by sweaters and puppy dogs.

What you’re missing is that the response to the ad, these juxtapositions of the two commercials, shows that they are incredibly dismissive of women. Molson is playing up the idea that women are gullible and not very bright, and that men will get a kick out of a campaign that claims to manipulate women in the shallowest possible way.

And of course, if it works and sells beer, it shows that men are gullible and not very bright. Sexism hurts men and women, since here it is, used to trick people into drinking crappy beer.

- Live by advertising, die by advertising by PZ Meyers.

(subtitled movies are girly now?!)

11:37 am - Wed, Nov 9, 2011
423 notes
Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn’t know it’s all a lawyers’ ramp, like ‘racial discrimination’? You pay a girl a compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up. Is this any way to live?

A right-wing commentator actually said this. And then The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates applied the smackdown.

(Via Nick Baumann)

(via motherjones)

12:44 pm - Tue, Sep 13, 2011
121 notes
The abortion issue isn’t really about “protecting the unborn.” If we examine the other positions that usually go along with being anti-choice, and if we talk honestly about them, we discover that criminalizing abortion is really about making it harder for women to make their own choices about when to have sex, and with whom. Criminalizing abortion is really about reversing the progress toward gender equality we’ve made over the last century. It’s about returning women to the status of second-class citizens. The real reason the religious right embraces the anti-choice stance is because they believe women should be submissive to men. But, saying that straight up would be political poison, so they talk about a “culture of life.”
#9  of “10 REASONS TO BE PRO-CHOICE” by ”Pine Belt Progressive” (via mo-khan)

(via squeetothegee-deactivated201111)

4:23 pm - Tue, Aug 16, 2011
374 notes


This is how I want to live my life.




This is how I want to live my life.


More Likes
Install Headline