Seriously, USA?

hamburgerjack: satanic2chainz: kingerock288: satanic2chainz: But I mean, I will take a pot shit...

Sat, 25 May 2013 19:12:31 -0400

satanic2chainz:

kingerock288:

satanic2chainz:

But I mean, I will take a pot shit and say Captain America doesn’t represent anything good

what do you mean, I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just curious?

okay, so, a few years ago a lot of comic book fans got their batman undies all twisted up in a knot during the Civil War even when one of it’s tie-in miniseries, Frontline, featured this exchange between Captain America and reporter Sally Floyd

and this scene made a lot of fans really fucking mad, really fucking mad

what none of them could realize is that Sally Floyd for right and they mostly just had a problem with a woman telling their precious sentinel of liberty how he was wrong.

Captain America, as a character, has always skirted this line where he claims to represent what is best for the American people (and there have been times where he’s opposed the government because what they were doing was wrong)

And during the Civil War event, Captain America goes on the fucking offensive as if the right to put on a mask and run around shooting lasers out of your cock is a civil liberty

He claims he’s doing it for the American people, but he doesn’t know shit about the American people. While Sally’s exact phrasing pissed people off, it’s like, Cap doesn’t understand why people are afraid of Spider-man, he doesn’t understand that there are college students who think he’s a fascist, he doesn’t understand why a mutant teenager would wear a Magneto Was Right shirt, he doesn’t know anything about America to the point that he can’t understand why people don’t want a registration act enacted

And we see the flip of this, post Dark Reign, where Cap is put in charge of America’s national security/The Avengers and he basically becomes a jackbooted thug. He storms his covert team into sovereign nations, he polices superheroes whose activities he doesn’t agree with, he puts members of an entire species on lockdown because Wolverine is beefing with Cyclops and he can’t be bothered to understand anything about the Phoenix Force.

Captain America is what happens when you give someone who has absolutely no desire to understand the world the power to police it.

The bolded is basically … why in essence he’s almost the perfect Captain America. Because that’s what it is.

Photo

Sat, 25 May 2013 14:24:27 -0400

It's my friend Zarina's birthday!! GO GIVE HER SOME BIRTHDAY LOVE!

Sat, 25 May 2013 12:21:00 -0400

It's my friend Zarina's birthday!! GO GIVE HER SOME BIRTHDAY LOVE!:

New favorite meme: Old Economy Steven

Sat, 25 May 2013 11:04:11 -0400

New favorite meme: Old Economy Steven

"[TW: domestic violence] The other question everybody asks is, why doesn’t she just leave? Why..."

Sat, 25 May 2013 09:36:06 -0400

“

[TW: domestic violence]

The other question everybody asks is, why doesn’t she just leave? Why didn’t I walk out? I could have left any time. To me, this is the saddest and most painful question that people ask, because we victims know something you usually don’t: It’s incredibly dangerous to leave an abuser. Because the final step in the domestic violence pattern is kill her. Over 70 percent of domestic violence murders happen after the victim has ended the relationship, after she’s gotten out, because then the abuser has nothing left to lose. Other outcomes include long-term stalking, even after the abuser remarries; denial of financial resources; and manipulation of the family court system to terrify the victim and her children, who are regularly forced by family court judges to spend unsupervised time with the man who beat their mother. And still we ask, why doesn’t she just leave?

”

- “Why domestic violence victims don’t leave” - Leslie Morgan Steiner (via childofweakness)

The question itself is part of a system of oppression. It’s not a real inquiry, it’s a reminder that abuse is a problem that the abused person should solve.

If it were a sincere inquiry, we’d hear, just as often, “If he was unhappy, why didn’t he leave instead of beating her?” But we don’t hear that.

(via tvandcomplaints)

alimarko: One thing I’ve trained myself to notice more often in the past year is the loudness of a...

Sat, 25 May 2013 04:48:06 -0400

alimarko:

One thing I’ve trained myself to notice more often in the past year is the loudness of a man’s voice when you (a woman) are debating or arguing with him. In most cases, when you disagree with him or he feels challenged, his voice gets louder and louder as he tries to reassert his opinions, sometimes interrupting or trying to talk over you.

And a lot of people, when I mention this, play the devil’s advocate and insist that all people do this naturally when trying to get their point across or prove themselves right. They tell me I’m too sensitive, that I’m just trying to demonize men for my “feminist agenda.”

But if you’re a woman (especially one without a deeper voice), you probably don’t subconsciously do this while arguing, especially with men. I know I don’t. Because when women get loud, especially in passioned, emotional ways, we are not more likely to be listened to. We are called hysterical or shrill, told to calm down, regarded as “bitches,” and our words are disregarded. I know that when I argue with men, I go out of my way to keep my voice even and calm even when my blood is boiling. Even when their voices escalate, even when I’ve been talked over for the fifth time. Because otherwise, I will be discredited for using the same tactics that are being used against me.

That’s without mentioning the fear so many women have of shouting, loud men. An overwhelming amount of violence women face is from men, and when they become loud or belligerent, we don’t know what to expect, and many of us fear the worst. Because to be weary is to be concerned with our survival.

A shouting man may not realize that he is forcing any woman with which he argues into a battle to subdue her own emotions while flaunting the systematic power he holds over her, but he is. And if you don’t think that’s a mechanism of the patriarchy and its silencing of women, you need to open your eyes.

[TW: Rape] Better late than never? Public spotlight on rape in the US military

Fri, 24 May 2013 22:43:12 -0400

socialismartnature:

a friend writes:

I love how there is now attention on rape in the military. 26,000 sexual assault cases in one year is a lot even for an institution that is 1,400,000. But the question in my mind is where has everyone been? The theme that dominated my interactions with the US Army during my five years in Germany, during the 1980s, was that enlisted women were regularly raped and forced into orgies. I cannot tell how many times I heard a woman say that she did not like the person she was marrying that much, but that it was a way to cut down on the number involuntary sexual partners she had. In fact the marriage mantra was, “I am getting married so that I will be raped by one man, instead of a whole army.” This was a quarter of a century ago. And here is the great thing about all of this, some people will be fired, some politicians will make hay, and some legislation might even come of this, but the US public will forget all about it and the US Raped Forces will get right back to work in a few months.

crackerhell: alexandraerin: mattbellamysfolds: “if i’m a person of color, i’m allowed to hate...

Fri, 24 May 2013 21:59:15 -0400

crackerhell:

alexandraerin:

mattbellamysfolds:

“if i’m a person of color, i’m allowed to hate white people!!!!’

“if i’m gay, i’m allowed to hate straight people!!!!”

“if i’m a woman, i’m allowed to hate men!!!”

“if i’m trans*, i’m allowed to hate cis people!!!”

The problem with this post—one of the problems with this post—is what we might call the logic of allowance. In point of fact, the reverse of those statements is true across the board.

White people are allowed to hate people of color, and we do, with wide-reaching results. Straight people are allowed to hate gay people, and they do, with wide-reaching results. Men are allowed to hate women, and they do, with wide-reaching results. Cis people are allowed to hate trans* people, and they do, with wide-reaching resutlts. These hatreds are allowed, encouraged, supported, and upheld on systemic and personal levels.

The “reverse hatreds” being cited with such gleeful derision (this is hateful post, by the way… whether you agree with its sentiments or not, this post mocks people and kicks them when they’re down and I’m very disappointed to see a blog that I don’t think of as hateful reblogging it) aren’t actually allowed. They aren’t tolerated. They are slapped down. Just observe on Tumblr how a person of color who is not suitably deferential to white people… and this is a moving goalpost, often an invisible goalpost that is erected on the fly specifically to pounce on and victimize a particular blogger… observe how they get treated. Observe the reaction to trans* people who don’t bow to cis sensibilities.

And some might say “WELL WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE DIE CIS SCUM OR DEMAND WHITE PEOPLE EXPLAIN WHY THEY’RE FOLLOWING YOU”, but here’s the thing: those things are reactions. And I’m sure the person who made this post and everyone who co-signs it would say “well, those reactions are just as bad as the actions they’re a response to”.

First of all, they’re not, on any level. You might believe in your heart of hearts that they’re not good, but there’s a severe imbalance of power and a resulting imbalance in effect. If a tractor trailer hauling several tons of cargo has a head-on collision with a smart car… well, we could say that they both hit each other. But that descriptor tells us nothing about the aftermath.

Or to use a better example: a pedestrian gets struck in the crosswalk by a car. Might the pedestrian have looked both ways or exercised more care to avoid the accident? Yes, possibly. But the impact of the car on the pedestrian matters more than the impact of the pedestrian on the car, a fact which is actually recognized by law.

Second… if they’re just as bad, well, then why do so many ~*good progressives*~ expend so much time and energy addressing only half of the problem? You can believe that two wrongs don’t make a right, but by addressing the second wrong, you’re implying that one wrong is just hunky-dory. And the wrong you seek to redress says a lot about the actual values that guide your hand.

You could say hate isn’t a Christian value. How about recognizing when someone is in pain and giving them balm? Is that a Christian value? Is it a Christian value to see a scream of rage and frustration and blame the person who gave vent to it?

Jesus might as well have said “I was powerless and you did not empower me, I was defenseless and you did not protect me, I was marginalized, and you did not center me.” when he spoke of physical hunger and thirst.

The hatred society directs at “the least among us” is lethal; the hatred reflected back is an embarrassing reminder of the cloud of hostility and threats society forces them to live under. That’s why we’re so uncomfortable with the latter, even as we blithely accept all but the most blatant and egregious examples of the former, and try to rationalize away or deny what we can’t ignore.

why shouldn’t I be allowed to hate people who are trying to kill me again i’ve never gotten a good reason for this

Chicago on my mind…save a few bucks, kill the lil darkies off

Fri, 24 May 2013 21:53:00 -0400

Chicago on my mind…save a few bucks, kill the lil darkies off:

However the current Chicago Public School system is in shambles. Today their school board voted to close 50 schools, schools where there are not enough kids enrolled according to the powers to be. On first glance this may seem like a sound business practice except that Chicago has a gang problem, it always has had a gang problem. Moving kids around like boxes on an Excel spreadsheet in a city with epidemic violence isn’t just a bad idea, it is a truly horrendous idea. Kids will have to cross gang lines and chaos will ensue. This is not hyperbole designed for good reading; this is the reality of life in the third largest city in the US. Never mind that these cuts are disproportionately affecting communities of color, the same communities that have already lost access to community mental health centers as well as other services. The same communities where access to a full service grocery store is damn near impossible and free services like the libraries are a joke and have been for the past twenty years. Nine out of ten kids affected by these school closing is Black…think about that.

Yet our President and First Lady who both call Chicago their hometown just this past weekend made speeches encouraging African American college graduates to do better, dream for more than being a rapper, etc. Too bad we have a new generation coming up whose chances of living to adulthood probably just got slimmer. Creating situations where children will have to face even greater danger just to save a few bucks and run a more efficient school system is not doing all that we can to help youth, it is basically telling them that they don’t matter.

nitanahkohe: around this time last year people finally started...

Fri, 24 May 2013 20:42:15 -0400

nitanahkohe:

around this time last year people finally started taking notice of the food-related issues in the upper northern reaches of Canada; consider this your reminder that even since then, juice is still $26 in Pangnirtung, Nunavut, and that the predominately indigenous communities in Canada’s North are forced to pay extraordinarily exorbitant prices for basic groceries due to structural inequity and the contemporary effects of ongoing settler occupation.

curioustoned: thedoodypoo: I think it’s the responsibility...

Fri, 24 May 2013 19:12:09 -0400

curioustoned:

thedoodypoo:

I think it’s the responsibility of films and television to accurately represent people, and the diverse group of people out there. And I think as more people see different types of lifestyles represented on TV, they’ll understand that this is just a realistic part of our world and our community. So, I was very proud to represent bisexual characters. -Olivia Wilde [x]

yeah. I have like the ultimate crush on Olivia Wilde. Swoon level over 9000

the camera pans back and we discover that blogs are better than tv

grasstomyknees: i love this

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:24:23 -0400

grasstomyknees:

i love this

choosechoice: AMEN

Fri, 24 May 2013 09:36:18 -0400

choosechoice:

AMEN

My nephew likes to sit on his Buzz Lightyear 4-wheeler and watch...

Fri, 24 May 2013 08:52:09 -0400

My nephew likes to sit on his Buzz Lightyear 4-wheeler and watch Buzz Lightyear on TV… Buzz-ception

melissa-skywalker: So I just discovered this “Nice Guy TM”...

Fri, 24 May 2013 04:48:20 -0400

melissa-skywalker:

So I just discovered this “Nice Guy TM” meme. Love it.

soisabee replied to your post: Smart Guy was legit the best show and if you… I have never...

Thu, 23 May 2013 23:20:17 -0400

soisabee replied to your post: Smart Guy was legit the best show and if you…

I have never heard of this show, when did it first air?

It first aired in 1997 on the Disney Channel - but a lot of the episodes are on YouTube! Here’s a link to the Pilot episode.

"Why haven’t you arrested any of these [banker] guys? Is it because they didn’t buy weed?..."

Thu, 23 May 2013 23:08:00 -0400

“Why haven’t you arrested any of these [banker] guys? Is it because they didn’t buy weed? And if they didn’t, let me tell you, it’s because they blew all their money on COCAINE!”

- Jon Stewart

odinsblog: Just a week ago, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe...

Thu, 23 May 2013 23:06:27 -0400

odinsblog:

Just a week ago, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe suggested that President Obama might be impeached over the Benghazi non-scandal. Now, Inhofe must watch as Obama declares Inhofe’s state a disaster area and promises Oklahomans “all the resources they need at their disposal.”

Inhofe, of course, believes his state deserves those resources, even though he voted down aid to Hurricane Sandy victims. On MSNBC, Chris Jansing confronted Inhofe about his calling the Sandy aid bill a “slush fund,” and the brazen right-winger insisted the two issues shouldn’t be linked.

“Let’s look at that, that was totally different,” Inhofe told Jansing. “They were getting things — for instance that was supposed to be in New Jersey, they had things in the Virgin Islands, they were fixing roads there, they were putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C.; everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy taking place. That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”

Inhofe’s answer is too dishonest to fully parse. First of all, there was Sandy damage way beyond New Jersey, including in the Caribbean and in Washington, D.C., too. And Inhofe had different objections to the Sandy bill at the time. In a rambling, hard-to-follow Senate floor speech blocking Sandy aid last December, the Oklahoma conservative objected to the bill’s timing — “There’s always a lot of theater right before Christmas time … We shouldn’t be talking about it right before Christmas” — even though it was already going on two months since the storm ravaged the East Coast.

Inhofe was also exercised by the fact that the Sandy bill included what he said was $28 billion for future disasters. But the climate-change denier was particularly outraged that the bill included $3.5 billion to deal with what he called “global warming,” which led to a long rant against cap-and-trade legislation, and then his floor speech unraveled. (Interestingly, Inhofe’s own press operation put the incoherent speech up on YouTube, as though it was a proud moment for the senator.)

Oklahoma’s other GOP senator, Tom Coburn, brags that he’s going to seek tornado relief — but insist that the funding is “offset” by other cuts to the federal budget. Coburn is proud that he’s being consistent by placing the same conditions on disaster aid to his own state as he’s demanded elsewhere. Consistent, maybe — but also fundamentally cruel.

Read More

Smart Guy was legit the best show and if you didn’t like Smart Guy then I don’t like...

Thu, 23 May 2013 23:04:55 -0400

Smart Guy was legit the best show and if you didn’t like Smart Guy then I don’t like you.

But if you DID like Smart Guy then

floral-prince: [TW: rape, sexual abuse] As a DMAB victim, I should be a poster-boy for “men’s...

Thu, 23 May 2013 22:50:26 -0400

floral-prince:

[TW: rape, sexual abuse]

As a DMAB victim, I should be a poster-boy for “men’s rights.” I should be shouting from the rooftops about my experience and the sexualization of young boys, about how it exists outside of the stereotypical “Catholic priest” scenario (and how those scenarios, while they don’t nearly cover the depth and breadth of the issue, are very real as well.) I should be able to talk to men, or even AROUND men, about my experience, about my struggles past and present with it, and receive support. But I’m not, and I can’t.

“Men’s rights” should be about the expectations of men to perform masculinity. To be stoic and kill off the emotional parts of themselves, to be “strong.” It should be about fighting for men’s rights to marry who they want, including other men. It should be about the unique struggles that men of color face, about the culture of crime and the criminal-industrial complex. It should be about lifting up non-binary and trans* men and accepting them. It should be fighting for equal representation of EVERY man. But it’s not, and it doesn’t.

When I would try to talk to men, about this, about anything, I was rejected. I was mocked. I was rejected by man culture because I wouldn’t perform the rites of masculinity. My voice was too high-pitched, my muscles weren’t large enough, I cared about things. I was sensitive. In two words, I was “too feminine.”

Which brings me to my point: “Men’s rights activism” is not pro-men; it is anti-women.