“[V]iolence against women is a form of
gender-based violence that is committed against women because they are women.” ~ Council Of Europe
Is it okay to do harm to women for not conforming to the stereotypes
assigned to them?
Is it okay to react with violence towards women who are not being
mindful of men’s comfort, power, or feelings?
Is it okay to enforce a position of dependence or subjugation for women,
and threaten financial, physical, or emotional retribution when a woman fights
against her chains?
Is it okay for women to not know their place?
But we’ve talked about all that, haven’t we?
These should have been questions with easy answers, but those who were
so firmly against the “dangerous” Istanbul Convention failed to understand the
real issue: violence against women is specific and distinct from violence
against the person. The Convention would have combated the root of the
problem, not given a man a slap on the wrist after he had burned his
ex-girlfriend’s face off with acid.
If everything was already fine, there wouldn’t be a need to sabotage a
measure which protects women – protecting women would already be in accordance
with the country’s goals. If the tools we had in place were working, we
wouldn’t be having thousands of women trapped in abusive relationships; all the
women in our lives wouldn’t have been able to tell countless stories of
harassment, abuse, rape, or other forms of women-specific violence.
Women-specific violence.
She was raped because she didn’t let him have her in the first place –
and satisfying him is a woman’s obligation.
She was hit because she burned his dinner – and cooking is a woman’s
obligation.
She was stomped on because she asked him where he’d been – and that is
not a woman’s business.
She was locked in her room because she was tired of him stinking of
alcohol – and telling him what to do is not a woman’s place.
She had her “allowance” taken away because she spent some time out with
her friends – and having a life outside her husband’s grasp is not a woman’s right.
A tweet that reads “just a quick reminder that a society exists to serve the people within it. there’s no such thing as a person being ‘useless’ to a society, only a society that is useless to a person”
Said it before and I’ll say it again – the idea that “the Left is about collectives and the Right is about individuals” is decades out of date.
The Left is about people working collectively for the good of individuals; the Right is about people working individually (“taking responsibility”) for the good of collective abstractions (e.g. “the economy”, “the traditional family”, “making America great again”), etc.
“the collective good of individuals” is a fucking collective abstraction you utter dolt
Yeah, you might want a bit of help with reading comprehension there.
The Left is about people working collectively,
(take a breath),
for the good of individuals.
Not “the collective good of individuals”. The individual good of individuals. Collective action; individual benefits. Like whether each individual can afford a house, can get the job they want, can go about their business without fear of being shot, can marry the person they love.
The Right, by contrast, thinks it’s OK if some people get only tiny crumbs as long as the whole economic pie – a collective entity – keeps getting bigger. Or if corporations – whose collective nature is written into the very word – keep getting richer. It is the Right, not the Left, that supports the legal fiction that corporations are people.
Silly question, right? If you define aging as a process that stops at death, the only way we’ll ever be the same age is if I die first. If you don’t, then we’ll never be the same age. Every time you age a year, I also age a year. Since our ages increase at the same rate, you will never catch up to my head start. We have achieved a total equality of aging, but that does not change the permanent inequality of our age.
Okay, say I have a million dollars and you’re completely broke. If we both get a dollar a day, how long will it take you to catch up with me?
Now, this one’s even sillier, because if you have no other resources, your dollar a day is going to be eaten up by basic living expenses that it doesn’t quite meet, and I have an excess of money that can be spent on money-making opportunities that pay off far better than an additional $365 a year. I could literally burn the dollar I’m getting as part of our Totally Equal Income and still make more money in a year than you do just by sticking my money in the bank.
But still: both of us getting a dollar a day is totally equal, right? It means we’re being treated exactly the same.
And now, final problem:
If we have a world that contains structural inequalities, systemic imbalances, disproportionate danger faced by some, and unequal access to resources and opportunities, is “treating everyone the same” really going to result in equality?
Show your work.
I may have reblogged this already but I don’t care it’s important.
I love Randy Bryce a LOT. His ads are amazing. I’ve been supporting him since he announced his candidacy and I’m not even in his state.
Support Randy Bryce!
From day one he’s said he wants to “repeal and replace” Paul Ryan, and I can get behind that level of schadenfreude. Also his Twitter handle is @IronStache and how can you not love that?
punk isn’t just skinny. punk isn’t just perfect mohawks or aesthetically pleasing jackets. punk isn’t only listening to dead kennedys or black flag. punk is being an individual, having no respect for our fascist authority, sticking up for the little guy even if you are the little guy. punk isn’t just a look or a music scene.
i literally made this because nazis and the alt right can’t be punk
Stop bringing politics into music genres lmao
stop bringing politics…….. into punk????
Here’s Green Day, one of the most popular and well known punk bands.
Wait, but there’s MORE!
Wait, in case you weren’t convinced that the punk scene is political and is all about standing up against fascism and bullshit and racism that America is facing:
shut up. Punk is not just a fucking music genre.
Ok I’m reblogging this again bc when I went to see green day, before they properly started playing they made us make a pledge, at the gig there is to be ‘No racism, no sexism, no homophobia, no donald trump’
Punk has been political long before Green Day existed. The political history of the Punk scene(s) cannot be divorced from the music scene(s) that arose out of them. It is not just about music. It is not just about fashion. The stylistic choices made have meaning and are situated in a social/political context.
That being said, it’s really important to acknowledge that Neo-Nazis didn’t infiltrate the Punk subculture for no reason. Absolutely, make it clear that Neo-Nazis are not welcome in The Punk Scene. However, part of doing that means confronting how they got there.
Punk music isn’t all about one political stance, though it’s commonly anti-authoritarian. Anyone can utilize the genre to promote their own ideologies, even if a popular intention of the genre is to be anti-authoritarian. Green Day is just one of many bands who use Punk music to spread their ideology.
It’s not just punk. Music has been used as a form of rebellion against oppression for a hell of a long time. Fuck, centuries even. The people who don’t get this have most likely never been oppressed in their life.
A few protest/”political” songs, and some about specific tragedies, from recent history, that aren’t just punk:
Zombie, The Cranberries
I Know A Place, MUNA
99 Luftballons, Nena
Beds Are Burning, Midnight Oil
Khe Sahn, Cold Chisel
I Was Only Nineteen, Redgum
The Greatest, Sia
Fuck Tha Police , N.W.A
Eve of Destruction, Barry McGuire
We Are The World, USA for Africa
Say It Loud (I’m Black and I’m Proud), James Brown
Big Yellow Taxi, Joni Mitchell (or more recently, Counting Crows)
Born in the USA, Bruce Springsteen
Know Your Rights, The Clash
Holiday in Cambodia, Dead Kennedys
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Gil Scott Heron
We’ve been doing this shit forever, it’s not new. War, racism, fascism, homophobia… if it’s harmed people, it’s been put into music. It’s an incredibly powerful medium that has changed the world before, and to say that politics, hatred, and tragedy shouldn’t be featured is, honestly, simply ignorant.
I cannot deal with the sheer level of numbskull-ery in a statement like “Don’t bring politics into music” as if this is some Silly Tumblr Fad and not something that’s been a thing for over a hundred years
bard is a combat class
bard is a combat class
governments will go as far as censoring lyrics and denying artists their visas to suppress the messages of songs. If politics can “meddle” with music, then music surely has the ability to do the same
Roy Moore Spokesman Ted Crockett: Muslims can’t serve because you have to swear in on a Bible. Jake Tapper: There’s no law that says you have to swear in on a Bible. Crockett: *shitshitshitshitshitTHINKMANTHINK* Tapper: You do know that right? Crockett: *justfinishstrongmanyoucandothis* WELL DONALD TRUMP
I saw this live. I was stunned
Is that true !?! You can swear on the quran for the inauguration to become the president of the United States ?! Guess I have some homework
Yes, because America is not a Christian nation. It was never supposed to have a state religion. As long as you’re a United States citizen and you meet the age and service requirements for President of the United States, you have every right to run.
UPDATE on HOMEWORK:
This what I found( cut and pasted ):
“Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law, with the intention that they were swearingon the constitution. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One”
I had no idea, I like the swearing on the book of law. Like @thunder-the-great said, we aren’t supposed to have a state religion.
The Constitution specifically forbids any religious test to hold office. You can swear on anything or nothing at all. You don’t even have to swear, the Constitution specifically says you can affirm.
Lan Diep of the San Jose city council swore on Captain America’s shield. You can literally swear on anything or nothing.
Pretty sure that after one of the last Congressional elections, there was an atheist who was sworn in with a book printing of the Constitution, which is absolutely the route I would choose, myself.
Also, if you swear in on a bible and you’re not Christian, you don’t burst into flame, or anything. Holy books, texts, and symbols are not boobytraps that those of different faiths cannot touch without being forced to convert on the spot, or be imprisoned or killed. That is still a completely dipshit reason to say that Muslims can’t hold American offices, even without there being a law to use a bible.
“But if they swear on a bible, it won’t mean anything to them!” Well, it doesn’t mean anything to you, either, or you wouldn’t keep refusing to heal the sick and feed the hungry.
As I said before.
We wrote the Constitution to protect FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not a SPECIFIC religion. Christians are trying to make this country Christian, when it was never meant to be. It was meant to be a haven.
She was identified Thursday, the same day the death of a Flint Water Treatment Plant foreman who was wanted for questioning in connection with the crisis was announced.
Beltainefaerie's Flights of Fancy 