"How much strength does it take to hurt a little girl?" she asked. "How much strength does it take for the girl to get over it? Which one of them do you think is stronger?"
- Fiona Apple, SPIN Magazine 1997
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
EXPECTATIONS
Interview Vampire Daily
almost home
The Bowery Presents
Color Me Curious
sheepfilms

No title available

izzy's playlists!

blake kathryn
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

roma★
Cosimo Galluzzi
Mike Driver

@theartofmadeline
untitled
YOU ARE THE REASON
todays bird
Keni
Cosmic Funnies

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Japan
seen from Indonesia

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from Indonesia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from Mongolia
seen from Netherlands
seen from Kazakhstan
@pinkhutia
"How much strength does it take to hurt a little girl?" she asked. "How much strength does it take for the girl to get over it? Which one of them do you think is stronger?"
- Fiona Apple, SPIN Magazine 1997
Anytime something is objectively damaging for women but makes ppl money they just get academics to write some opaque gibberish about how it's actually empowering and feminist via Long Division and then force-feed that POV to undergraduates-whose job it is to vomit it to all their friends. So in the end, what makes corporations, insurance companies, sex industry stakeholders etc money is somehow always in alignment with the latest 19th wave of feminism
further comment on my post about birth rate and natalism. a lot of women responded, "yes and also so many of us want children but can't afford to have them!" it's totally a fair and important comment to make, but after seeing 100 of them in a row i feel like i have to add... look, my research suggests so far that all types of socialist intervention which make childbearing more attractive for women still do not bring the birth rate above replacement. when i say in that post that the evidence doesn't bear out a version of natalism that is feminist, that's what i mean. what i have read so far strongly suggests that the completely free birth rate as far as we have ever been able to see so far in modern history is probably slightly below replacement. consider that even if you personally want children, if you want fewer than three children, your desires point toward the maintenance of a below-replacement birth rate. for every woman who doesn't want any children, another woman must want five to push the birth rate above replacement. the fact that the birth rate is below replacement is the exact thing that the antifeminist right considers an emergency. so, the argument that women would have more children in a more equitable economy, although it's probably true, is not enough for them and we need to be aware of the weakness in that argument. read this anti-feminist piece in compact magazine for an example of their perspective.
i worry about the consequences of the argument, "well, we would have more children if the state would perform a different policy intervention than the one the right is suggesting." i feel that this argument represents a type of socialist natalism. again, i understand where the comment comes from, but my point is that attempting to alter the decision of a women to not have a child should not be an appropriate motivation for policy intervention point blank. that's why i think we need to be generating economic ideas that presume below-replacement birth rate is the only free and just demographic future for all human beings.
people make fun of the "oh you only hate her because she's a WOMAN" crazy feminist mentality but yeah actually you guys do only hate her because she's a woman a lot of times. for every hated female tv character there's ten male tv characters who are a million times worse and still given at least the "intriguing morally grey character" treatment if not straight up praise. for every hated female celebrity in real life there's one hundred famous men who have done worse and don't get half the hate she does.
Jeroen Toirkens, girl holding two reindeer in Taiga, Dukha, Mongolia
bell hooks, communion: the female search for love
today i'm fighting gender roles by having anger issues that you could only find in particularly high-testosterone baboons
Katharine Hepburn in a photo shoot from Sylvia Scarlett, by Ernest Bachrach.
the most reasonable moid on reddit
(for context, a man was hitting a ladys car while she was in it, she starts slapping him saying "don't touch my car" and he knocks her out. comments are filled with "equal rights equal fights" morons)
Nicole Simpson knew someday her husband would kill her. She’d told many people, including her sister, Denise, that he’d kill her and get away with it. In fact, you can take a battered woman’s knowledge of her abuser’s capacity to inflict harm and evade consequences to the bank.
But five days before Nicole Simpson was murdered, she knew, for sure, she would die. How? Why? Something had happened: a confrontation, a threatening phone call, an unwanted visit, an aggressive act from Simpson directed at her. She told no one, because, after seventeen years of torment, she knew there was no one to tell. The police virtually everywhere ignore assault against women by their male intimates, so that any husband can be a brutal cop with tacit state protection; in Los Angeles, the police visited Nicole Simpson’s abuser at home as fans.
Remember the video showing Simpson, after the ballet recital, with the Brown family—introduced by the defense to show Simpson’s pleasant demeanor. Hours later, Nicole Simpson was dead. In the video, she is as far from Simpson, physically, as she can manage. He does not nod or gesture to her. He kisses her mother, embraces and kisses her sister, and bear-hugs her father. They all reciprocate. She must have been the loneliest woman in the world. What would Nicole Simpson have had to do to be safe? Go underground, change her appearance and identity, get cash without leaving a trail, take her children and run—all within days of her call to the shelter. She would have had to end all communication with family and friends, without explanation, for years, as well as leave her home and everything familiar.
With this abuser’s wealth and power, he would have had her hunted down; a dream team of lawyers would have taken her children from her. She would have been the villain—reckless, a slut, reviled for stealing the children of a hero. If his abuse of her is of no consequence now that she’s been murdered, how irrelevant would it have been as she, resourceless, tried to make a court and the public understand that she needed to run for her life?
Nicole Simpson knew she couldn’t prevail, and she didn’t try. Instead of running, she did what the therapists said: be firm, draw a line. So she drew the sort of line they meant: he could come to the recital but not sit with her or go to dinner with her family—a line that was no defense against death. Believing he would kill her, she did what most battered women do: kept up the appearance of normality. There was no equal justice for her, no self-defense she felt entitled to. Society had already left her to die.
On the same day the police who beat Rodney G. King were acquitted in Simi Valley, a white husband who had raped, beaten, and tortured his wife, also white, was acquitted of marital rape in South Carolina. He had kept her tied to a bed for hours, her mouth gagged with adhesive tape. He videotaped a half hour of her ordeal, during which he cut her breasts with a knife. The jury, which saw the videotape, had eight women on it. Asked why they acquitted, they said he needed help. They looked right through the victim— afraid to recognize any part of themselves, shamed by her violation. There were no riots afterward.
The governing reality for women of all races is that there is no escape from male violence, because it is inside and outside, intimate and predatory.
While race-hate has been expressed through forced segregation, woman-hate is expressed through forced closeness, which makes punishment swift, easy, and sure. In private, women often empathize with one another, across race and class, because their experiences with men are so much the same. But in public, including on juries, women rarely dare. For this reason, no matter how many women are battered—no matter how many football stadiums battered women could fill on any given day—each one is alone.
Surrounded by family, friends, and a community of affluent acquaintances, Nicole Simpson was alone. Having turned to police, prosecutors, victims aid, therapists, and a women’s shelter, she was still alone. Ronald L. Goldman may have been the only person in seventeen years with the courage to try to intervene physically in an attack on her; and he’s dead, killed by the same hand that killed her, an expensively gloved, extra-large hand.
Though the legal system has mostly consoled and protected batterers, when a woman is being beaten, it’s the batterer who has to be stopped; as Malcolm X used to say, “by any means necessary”—a principle women, all women, had better learn. A woman has a right to her own bed, a home she can’t be thrown out of, and for her body not to be ransacked and broken into. She has a right to safe refuge, to expect her family and friends to stop the batterer— by law or force—before she’s dead. She has a constitutional right to a gun and a legal right to kill if she believes she’s going to be killed. And a batterer’s repeated assaults should lawfully be taken as intent to kill.
Everybody’s against wife abuse, but who’s prepared to stop it?
Andrea Dworkin, In Memory of Nicole Brown Simpson
Tracy Chapman
When a modern woman is blessed with a body that can move, run, dance, play, and bring her to orgasm; with breasts free of cancer, a healthy uterus, a life twice as long as that of the average Victorian woman, long enough to let her express her character on her face; with enough to eat and a metabolism that protects her by laying down flesh where and when she needs it; now that hers is the gift of health and well-being beyond that which any generation of women could have hoped for before—the Age of Surgery undoes her immense good fortune. It breaks down into defective components the gift of her sentient, vital body and the individuality of her face, teaching her to experience her lifelong blessing as a lifelong curse.
— Naomi Wolf (1990) The Beauty Myth
Women’s Voices Now streams hundreds of films about women’s issues from women directors all over the world, for free!
You can really just click on any film and watch the entire thing online, for free! There’s documentaries and narrative films, short films and feature length! I STRONGLY encourage you to check it out.
WHY CANT WE JUST TELL WOMEN THEIR MAKEUP LOOKS DUMB AS FUCK. YOU LOOK LIKE A CLOWN. CONTOUR LOOKS RIDICULOUS. YOUR FAKE EYELASHES LOOK STUPID AND UGLY. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY THIS BECAUSE ITS TRUE !!!
Lord of the Rings Trilogy but it's EVERY scene where two female characters interact
my brain broke when Elly Arrow (radical feminist on YouTube) compared prostitution to the videos where people made homeless men fight and do humiliating things for money, which everyone knew was wrong, and asked why prostitution is fine if that’s not… light bulb moment