Fucking wiiiiinds me up seeing photos of women on the red carpet wearing next to nowt. Remember when Angie Jolie's thigh-high split in her dress was controversial about a decade ago and now famous women will just parade about minge in the breeze with their tits akimbo and this is normal and if it makes you uncomfortable as a woman yourself you're SHAMING her and stopping her self expression and you're a fascist and probably a Christian and you're playing into male hands because obviously men are really frightened by such an awesome display of Female Empowerment (baps out in public). They're truly shitting themselves and do not benefit from women trading their dignity for power in any way. It sounds like you're just not a girl's girl ❤️ look within xox
If men at these events forewent their usual boring tuxes to drape lace daintily around one bollock and wap on some kind of glittered tit sling and 6 inch heels and posed as if they were scared to breathe / on the verge of violent diarrhea all night they'd look ridiculous wouldn't they. Why's everyone so blind to how RIDICULOUS grown fucking successful women look hobbling about with their chebs out. I think you should be publically shamed as a traitor to other women doing this shite
Begging y'all to stop acting like you can just remove organs with no negative consequences.
Hysterectomy is associated with new mental health conditions, increased cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity, trouble with ovarian function (2), incontinence increases, pelvic organ fistulas, heart disease, increased cancer risk, increased overall worse outcomes, and more.
Oophorectomy before natural menopause is associated with multiple conditions including accelerated aging even without pre-existing conditions, negative effects on long term health, it has significant neurodegenerative effects (2 & 3 & 4), ovarian conservation is important to mortality rates (2), substantial cardiovascular risk, it does NOT cure endometriosis, it associated with even causing chronic fatigue, just to name a few. Even the menopause society themselves have advised against their removal before natural menopause because of how substantial the negative effects on the body are.
People are reblogging this for a lot of reasons but I posted this because I was told multiple times by multiple specialists and medical providers that: "a hysterectomy and oophorectomy are ways to be done with endometriosis", that "there aren't any consequences to early surgical menopause other than not being able to have kids" and maybe some mild bone depletion, and that "there just isnt any research on surgical menopause in younger women" which was put in my chart
and yet all of these things are in fact false.
I was never told that the uterus and ovaries are important for other health reasons even though I specifically asked, and was instead told the opposite.
I wasn't given any of the information above. When I tried to bring up anything similar, I was sternly told the opposite- that these organs were easy to remove and that it wasn't a big deal unless you wanted children.
So the least I can do is take the stockpile of articles I keep in my notes on my phone and share them so that someone else can have the information I had to find on my own after the fact, given the endometriosis specialist took my healthy organs anyway and committed medicaid fraud to get himself paid.
So, enjoy my link stockpile, but very gently I am pointing out this is about the procedures in the most general informed consent sense. I see people saying in the tags that this information "wont change any minds" and that is simply not true- I would have run for the hills from any provider suggesting these things as necessary had I known a) how much that wasn't true or helpful but also b) how devastating the health consequences would be on top of the health problems I have already, because c) most physicians are absolute dogshit at informed consent because they themselves are under false impressions about these procedures as well. I have met many, MANY healthcare workers who have a very poor understanding of hysterectomy and or oophorectomy consequences including people who have had them done themselves and STILL have misunderstandings about it.
Becoming a man requires that the boys learn to be indifferent to the fate of women. Indifference requires that the boy learn experience women as objects. The poet, the mystic, the prophet, the so-called sensitive man of any stripe, will still hear the wind whisper and the trees cry. But to him, women will be mute. He will have learned to be deaf to the sounds, sighs, whispers, screams of women in order to ally himself with other men in the hope that they will not treat him as child, that is, as one who belongs with the women.
Activists hope a change in international law could help to address the intensifying erosion of women and girls’ rights in Afghanistan
Over the past three years, the world has watched in horror as women and girls in Afghanistan have had their rights and freedoms systematically stripped away.
In the face of inaction by the international community, a campaign for the conditions being imposed on Afghan and Iranian women to be made a crime under international law as gender apartheid was launched last year. What does the term mean and will it make a difference?
What does gender apartheid mean?
Gender apartheid is a term used to describe the systemic oppression, discrimination and segregation of a specific group based on gender.
Apartheid is defined as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.
Racial apartheid, which comes from the Afrikaans word for “separateness”, became a crime under international law in 1973 in response to the segregation and subjugation of black South Africans by the white ruling class in South Africa since 1948, and which continued until 1994.
Women’s rights activists, UN experts and lawyers argue that if you replace the word “racial” with “gender”, it becomes an accurate reflection of the condition of tens of millions of women and girls in Afghanistan and Iran.
What are activists calling for?
At the end of 2023, a campaign called End Gender Apartheid was launched by Afghan human rights activists, backed by United Nations experts, calling for gender apartheid in Afghanistan to be codified as a crime against humanity by the U
The campaign argues that current laws criminalising gender persecution do not reflect the intent, ideology and institutionalised nature of the systemic subjugation and deprivation of women in Afghanistan , where laws have been specifically crafted to constrain the lives of women and their role in society.
What is the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan?
Women and their status and rights have been pivotal to the Taliban’s governance of Afghanistan since it swept to power in August 2021, after the withdrawal of US and UK troops and the collapse of the democratic Afghan government.
In the past three years, the group has issued more than 80 edicts curtailing the rights of all Afghanistan’s women and girls.
The Taliban have stopped girls from attending secondary school and university, banned women from almost every form of paid employment, prevented them from walking in public parks, attending gyms or beauty salons and blocked their access to the legal system.
In August, they published a new set of “vice and virtue” laws, which banned women from speaking in public, deeming their voices an “intimate” part of their bodies, and made it mandatory for women to cover every part of their body in thick cloth in public. It also made it illegal for women to look at a man who is not a relation.
The Taliban have also brought back flogging and the stoning and public execution of women for offences such as adultery.
What about calls for this also to apply to Iran?
Some human rights activists are also arguing that the term gender apartheid should also be applied to what is happening to women in Iran.
They argue that Iran’s new “hijab and chastity” bill imposes harsh penalties, including prison sentences of up to 10 years, on women who do not conform to a mandated dress code and head covering in public.
It also increases the surveillance of women and girls by the government to ensure they are conforming to the hijab regulations, using CCTV cameras on public transport and government-mandated “hijab watchers” and imposes more gender segregation in public spaces. An aggressive enforcement crackdown by the Iranian regime has seen women shot in their cars, dragged from the streets, tortured and imprisoned after being deemed to be in breach of strict hijab laws
The UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran has called the law a form of gender apartheid, and said “authorities appear to be governing through systemic discrimination with the intention of suppressing women and girls into total submission”
However, others argue that the situation for women in Iran is not comparable to the plight of women in Afghanistan and while the Iranian authorities are undeniably imposing human rights abuses and severe gender discrimination on women and girls, it does not equate to gender apartheid.
Could making gender apartheid a crime against humanity make a difference?
Those calling for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime against humanity argue that the international community responded to racial apartheid in South Africa after it became a crime in 1973,eventually forcing the government to back down.
If gender apartheid was codified as a crime and applied to Afghanistan or Iran, states would theoretically be obliged to take action, to uphold the integrity of international laws. It would also increase pressure on countries to grant asylum to Afghan and Iranian women and girls and hopefully stop states from accepting the legitimacy of Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan and pursuing trade and diplomatic relations with them.
In September, Canada, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands said it was planning to take the Taliban to the international court of justice (ICJ) for gender discrimination, which could strengthen the calls to codify gender apartheid under international law.
However, others argue that making gender apartheid a crime would have limited impact.
When it comes to Afghanistan, while activists push for sanctions and isolation of the Taliban, the international community has largely followed a policy of conditional engagement and there are signs that countries in the region are slowly building diplomatic bridges with the regime.
So far, no condemnation, sanctions or pressure from the international community has had any impact on the Taliban or the relentless oppression of women and girls in Iran and there is no prospect of governments engaging militarily in Afghanistan or Iran to protect their rights.
As one Afghan woman told the Guardian earlier this year: “Nobody is coming to help us.”
I'm so disappointed with The Economist reporting on Sweden's decision to ban OnlyFans content. Instead of acknowledging how it benefits women's rights, safety, and health, they regard Sweden as a "prudish" country.
We banned it because gross old men were paying barely legal girls to do disgusting sexual acts and exploiting them.
The Economist: PRUDES!!!
Like we have full frontal nudity in our comedy, we bathe nude in the sea in the summer, and openly talk about healthy sex on our morning news programs... But yeah, we won't let girls be sexually exploited by old pervs so we're "prudes," riiiight. 🙄
Yanks were calling Swedes and other Scandinavians (since they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those countries even if you paid them a million dollars) perverts not fifteen years ago for those very things. Clown country fr 🙄
Lana del Rey (early work) and Sabrina Carpenter basically did the same thing to achieve success, after unsuccessful attempts to make it big. They picked an immediately recognizable set of visual symbols invoking a specific white female heterosexuality--Lana did her Veronica Lake peekaboo chanteuse film noir femme fatale, Sabrina did... something similar but blonder and with the self-conscious "oopsie-woopsie!" funny horny baby part of Marilyn Monroe's public image--and made songs about the destructive inevitability of relationships with men. Lana sang about rich, older men using and abusing her, surrounded by imagery implying luxury, wealth, and danger. Sabrina sings about male partners disappointing her, being stupid, useless, and frustrating, but craving their attention and loving sex with them regardless. In both cases, the result of the "story" each tells is foreclosed. Yes, men are evil, but Lana will go back to Daddy. Yes, men are useless, but Sabrina will go back to hottie. There is no possibility of declining the heterosexual imperative. For all these reasons calling these works "feminist" is pretty much a joke given the scads of money both have made off their respective images. The culture loves the symbols they use and the narratives they evoke and will throw cash at any woman who can continue to produce this dead-end type of cultural messaging and sell other women the lie that you have no choice but to partner with and center men no matter how unhappy they make you or how much it hurts.
i’m not really a fan of the idea that “you can’t buy consent.” i think we can observe where consent is purchased everywhere in our economic system. the problem, i think, doesn’t rest in delineating what “real” or “fake” consent is. the problem is that, as a culture under free market capitalism, there is a belief that consent precludes exploitation or harm. if i am cut with a knife for a sexual thrill, i will bleed and require some manner of medical attention/intervention, even if i provided “enthusiastic consent.” people who, like, buy into the ideology of kink, for example, tend to believe the presence of abuse or harm is negated by consent. the act of being cut by a knife for a sexual thrill is no longer harmful, despite the blood drawn, despite the necessary medical intervention, because i agreed to be cut. we are being asked to ignore harm, violence, abuse, and power dynamics if both parties like or agree to the act. drawing a line between what “enthusiastic consent” or “coerced consent” is doesn’t provide a path out from this trap, i think.
to me, this is a glaring philosophical failing that does a disservice to how violence and abuse are addressed. and make no mistake, among radicals, it is very suspicious how most leftists apply libertarianism to matters that primarily affect women, and communist principals to matters that affect men. the presence of consent to an employment contract has never stopped a male communist from speaking out against the exploitation of wage labor, but matters of sexual subordination or sexual exploitation are not addressed with the same political sophistication, consistency, and rigor. this has to change!
I personally believe the whole 'consent' model is built for the convenience of what powerful people want from us. This happens from the bottom up: for social situations to 'work', there has to be a default assumption that all parties are consenting to the situation. The woman who claims 'let's all go to this museum' is asserting that she has the strongest will, and it's assumed for the sake of group lubrication that everyone who agrees either 100% wants to go to the same museum, or they do not have a will either way and are inherently consenting to defer to her will. Of course, we all know in theory that it's not that simple - but we all pretend it is to get along with each other. Some people are much more accepting of this dynamic than others, however. And for those that don't accept the dynamic but don't know how to address it without asserting a much stronger will, can 'break' the unspoken social contract and kick up a fuss, argue, cry, or claim mental illnesses. This is why left-wingers/liberals are seen as 'soft', and actual attempts at negotiation amongst friend groups instead of deferring to the will of the de-facto leader based on strength of character alone are considered the 'weaker' way to run a society.
The implicit understanding we all have is that when we enter the social world, we 'consent' to the other person's behaviour, and asking for modifciation of said behaviour is breaking the rules and being underhanded to get things you haven't 'earned'. Even the most well-meaning of people (myself included - I've been on both sides of this!) will get annoyed at you if they've suggested a restaurant, you join them, and you look uncomfortable until you admit that you never wanted to go and actually wanted to go somewhere else. People would much rather you were kinda an asshole because then they know that your actions are authentic, and they don't need to spend brain energy 'checking in' on you. Mentally ill people get seen as obnoxious, left-wingers get seen as untrustworthy, hippies are secretly the real assholes all along, all because they break these unspoken rules.
Women especially get a raw deal from this whole thing, because on top of these social rules that are essentially independent of sex, the default assumption is that women will defer to men's will. This is why the most firey, strong-willed, takes-no-shit woman can still end up in an extremely abusive relationship with a man. And even more damningly, it means that whatever horrible shit a man does to her, she's still ultimately partly to blame - because once you're the party who has stuff 'done' to them, there's basically no easy way out. These models of consent are an implicit assertion that by being involved in any way, you agree to the situation.
If your friend constantly makes mean quips about your dress sense, you either stay friends with them and quip back, or slowly low-key manipulate them into not snarking at you, or you leave. Every instance where they do something to you and you tolerate it is seen as consent - even you not tolerating it is still seen as consent, because our model of consent is not built on the actual internal mechanisms of the people involved but rather simply 'this action has happened and you didn't prevent it, now deal with it'. This is an incredibly useful model of consent if you want to build and maintain power structures.
So we take this model of consent based on 'this person took a risk to be an asshole assert their will and now their behaviour is out in the world and everyone else has to deal with it, suck it up, that's just how the world is' and 'men are physically stronger than women and can forcibly impregnate them' and you end up with women in an impossible bind. As per this model of consent, women have to love being treated like second-class citizens, we have to love being abused, we have to love being raped - not just because if it turns out we don't then we have to confront fundamental patriarchal values, but then the whole model of consent that our society is built around would entirely collapse. And the most dangerous conservatives will take this to its logical extreme - not only do women inherently consent because men do this this to us, but the very fact that the bodies of the sexes are built in such a way that it faciliates rape and forced impregnantion means that it is built into biology itself that women desire to be raped.
Leftist models of exploitation break social rules which just so happen to benefit those in power, and it's a chicken-and-egg situation; do models of social interaction happen to benefit those wishing to seek power, or do those in power model social rules to benefit them? You only have to see the backlash against 'therapy speak', the phrase 'that one friend that's too woke', and, most damningly, the mass rise in fascism across the world - all in response to a push for society to be more communicative and accommodating of those that break that model of inherent consent. This is why I have a lot more time for lame and cringey left-wingers rather than 'common sense' normies because I refuse to buy into the idea that it's specifically the lefties who want special accommodations; after all, feminists have been accused of wanting special accommodations for simply not desiring to be harassed, assaulted and/or raped.
In the subconscious minds of many, they would have to contend with either the idea that rape is some magical special case where 'consent' is actually in the mind, or that every single one of their encounters with another human being has involved a laundry list of assumptions that the other person is OK with whatever they're subjecting them to. It's much easier to get angry at the other person for 'not communicating' (women who leave shitty men get accused of 'not communicating') and ignore the power imbalances that exist everywhere - whilst structural powers exist, there are much more fluid and intangible social ones that are hard to comprehend. And those structural powers wouldn't be able to exist without the ideology that forms the social ones.
every time someone is asked to describe what they consider to be positive masculinity (hardworking, protective, whatever) they are at a loss when the follow up question is "okay but what makes these positive characteristic masculine? women have them too"... it's almost as if it's all patriarchal bullshit lol
it's even more cringe when they come up with this pseudo chivalry (lol) revival like DEFEND those who cannot defend themselves SWEAR by your honor... you are not lohengrin you are 27 and on reddit
- good behaviors and values an adult man should emulate
but what good behaviors or values should an adult man emulate that an adult woman should not?
- i never said these were EXCLUSIVE to men
then why do you call them masculine values if they are not gendered
- because they are associated with men
and why is that
- testosterone
i have noticed that the qualities you call masculine are high prestige and associated with authority while the qualities you call feminine are low prestige and associated with submission and caretaking. are you sure there are no social and cultural forces at play here?
https://www.instagram.com/fluence.co/: They say 87% of non-human characters on children’s shows are male, so we looked at our favorite films as children and counted. In our estimates at Fluence, less than 9% of non-human characters from our favorite childhood shows were female.
But does that really matter? It turns out it does. In many Disney princess movies these side characters have a lot more speaking time than the main princess. Mushu speaks more than Mulan. Iago speaks more than Jasmine, etc.
And yes, Raja from Aladdin is a boy. The word raja literally means “prince”. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
We’re working on an IGTV episode all about Disney’s focus on male characters in Princess movies, but here are some sources if you want to get a jump on the reading for extra credit.
See more characters on our IG https://www.instagram.com/p/COdiQOBBsCR/ !
This has a huge impact on girls saying they aren’t girls because they’re “just a little guy.” Male is default. Male gets to be “just a little guy” while women get the eyelashes/bows added to standard (male) character designs. Or alternatively some nurturing figure.
i simply do not respect 'non binary' people. You worked out that gender stereotypes are bullshit but all you took from it is 'i am a special interesting third thing, unlike all you boring peasants'
i’m just a regular person on the internet with a pornography obsession so significant that it is impossible even for strangers not to notice. however, i’m normal. don’t mind the orgasming cartoon woman i have as my profile pic – it’s just her head so it is OK. let’s talk about something normal, i expect you to be able to ignore all this
vaporwave
andulkaphoto
blakekathryn
yousharknotpass
theartofmadeline
snowghoul
prguitarman
pixelskylines
