[trannosphere]

Breast-Feeding Mom Loses Discrimination Case Because Men Can Lactate Too

In a recent piece for the New Republic, Rebecca Traister argues that "pregnancy and immediate postpartum life itself plays a serious role in slowing pr ...

“In a recent piece for the New Republic, Rebecca Traister argues that “pregnancy and immediate postpartum life itself plays a serious role in slowing professional momentum for women for whom the simple—and celebrated—act of having a baby turns out to be a stunningly precarious economic and professional choice.” Just last week, the Supreme Court took a major step in keeping it that way, upholding a federal appeals court ruling against a breast-feeding mother, Angela Ames, who felt bullied out of her job with Nationwide Insurance. Part of the court’s reasoning was, according to Galen Sherwin of the American Civil Liberties Union, “that even if Angela had been fired because she was breast-feeding, that was not sex discrimination, in part because men can lactate under certain circumstances.”

Ames’ story reads as every woman’s worst nightmare of what coming back from maternity leave could be like. Ames alleges that when she returned to work, another employee’s things were in her workspace. When she asked for a place to pump breast milk, she was sent to a company nurse. Even though the Nationwide offices had a lactation room, Ames says she was denied access and told she had to fill out paperwork and wait for days for it to be processed in order for them to open the door to let her in. With her breasts swelling and uncomfortable, she says the only options offered to her were rooms that had no privacy.

At this point, Ames says she reached out to the department head for help in getting that lactation room door open, which is when she was met with a resignation letter to sign. Ames reports that her department head said, “Just go home to be with your babies.”

The court ruled against Ames’ claim of discrimination, saying she didn’t fight hard enough to keep her job and that she should have gone to H.R. before giving up. The ACLU and Ames argue that it’s hard not to feel permanently fired when your boss is telling you to go home and dictating a resignation letter for you. But while the case was primarily decided on this question of whether Ames fought back hard enough, the trial court also ruled that bullying women over breast-feeding cannot be considered sex discrimination, because men can, in theory, lactate, too.

Of course, whether men can squeeze breast milk out under some circumstances really should be irrelevant. Breast-feeding is clearly and almost exclusively associated with women in our culture—really, all cultures. The fact that the original court latched onto such a silly argument suggests an unwillingness to take Ames’ case seriously from the get-go, which casts a pall over the entire ruling. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has, by declining to take up the case, made it easier for employers to fire women for having babies, whether they put it that way or not.”

[radfemichigan]

“But women aren’t fired for being women anymore!”

Not to mention, this is literally what happens when you take away sex-specific language. You get obvious cases of discrimination being thrown out because “some men can do this”. 

Women are the only ones who breastfeed and a woman was fired for this specific reason.

[old-school-butch]

And there we have it… the end game of genderism.

[misshorrorotaku-deactivated2024]

Or you could get your heads out of your asses.

This kinda shit happened long before trans people were even acknowledged as existing. This has nothing to do with trans people and using sex-specific language would have changed nothing because males can lactate you dumb fucks. It doesn’t matter what language you use, that fact wouldn’t stop existing and thus the court using it as an excuse would not just stop being a thing.

Why y’all insist on taking cases like this and blaming it all on trans people EVEN WHEN WE HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH IT, is beyond me, but it sure demonstrates where your priorities lie and it sure as fuck ain’t with stopping cases like this.

[bizarrolord-deactivated20241123]

Men who were not born female can also lactate in specific instances. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t have nipples or some breast tissue.

This all being said, why do women want to be such special snowflakes for being female? Damn. YOU ARE NOT SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE YOU CAN GIVE BIRTH. Get your head out of your ass.

[drpepper-is-a-woman]

So what? 99% of cis men cannot lactate and have non-functional nipples. I love how you read an article about a woman clearly being discriminated against because she’s female and you think that being against this means we think we are superior?? Wanting to be able to privately breastfeed and keep a job is too much to ask?

You just sound like a misogynist.

[bizarrolord-deactivated20241123]

Because “MISOGYNY!” is your answer to anything critical of your movement. No critical thinking, not accountability for your own actions, just the menz keeping you down. (She could have pumped at home beforehand. I see no evidence here that she tried to manage breastfeeding/expressing milk outside of company time.)

And you kind of made it into a big deal when you brought trans people into this when the case had nothing to do with them.

[drpepper-is-a-woman]

Oh that makes sense, next time just say you don’t know how women’s bodies work lol.

[drpepper-is-a-woman]

This is just more proof that men love to act like authorities on women’s lives but know absolutely nothing about us.

Women who are lactating do so throughout the day, this is involuntary

When you’re lactating you have to release the milk or else it can lead to the breasts becoming engorged: which can lead to plugged ducts, mastitis, and even abscesses that require hospitalization

Also not releasing the milk can cause the milk to leak through bras/clothing

Not something women can control and happens naturally, therefore need accomodations to do so safely and privately

Only women lactate and menstruate and we should have legal protections in place that assure we don’t have to give up our positions in society because of things we can’t control

By removing the significance of sex removes the legal rights women have to call out sexism

No male will ever experience these things to the degree that women do and arguing otherwise is just science denialism

The reason why identity politics was brought up was because refusing to acknowledge biological differences means they can discriminate against female bodies freely because “some men have XYZ”

Hope this points out why your addition was so mind numbingly ignorant and laughable

@bizarrolord

[wolfmachine]

God what a pig

[tiktoks-repost]

[headspace-hotel]

I’m going to play six degrees of Wikipedia, anybody want to give me some topics

[headspace-hotel]

[image description: two comments that say “sand” and “weasel family.” End description]

Sand->Organism->Animal->Pet->Weasel->Mustelidae. took a surprising amount of time to find rip

[headspace-hotel]

[image description: two comments that say “bog mummies” and “parthenogenesis.” end description]

Bog body->organ->reproductive system->sexual reproduction->fertilization->parthenogenesis

[headspace-hotel]

[images: comments that say “homestuck” and “Mesopotamia” respectively. end description]

Homestuck->nonlinear narrative->epic poetry->Sumer->Mesopotamia

[headspace-hotel]

[images: comments that say “tripe” and “middlebury, Vermont” respectively. end description]

Tripe->American cuisine->Vermont->Middlebury, Vermont

[headspace-hotel]

[images: comments that say “knife making” and “icarly” respectively. end description]

This one broke my spirit

So.

What I have is

Knife making-> Tool steel-> List of steel producers-> Cleveland-Cliffs-> 2002 United States steel tariff-> Unintended consequences-> Censorship->Censorship in China ->Winnie the Pooh-> CBS-> Television broadcasting->Television show->Sitcom->List of sitcoms->Icarly

...That’s 15 steps and I KNOW I can make this shorter but how

[punk-rock-yuppie]

knife making > stone age > the Flintstones > sitcom > laugh track > icarly (got it down to 6 @headspace-hotel )

[spaceportcrescentia]

(◕‿◕✿) facts about divorce for feminists and MRAs:

in most (51%) of cases, both parents decided on their own (out of court) that the mother was to receive full custody

in 29% of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement

in 91% of cases, the decision for the mother to have custody was made without court involvement

of those who go to court, 70% of men who seek custody of their child receive it

of those 70%, 1/3 of the cases cited domestic abuse as part of the reason for divorce

women who mention having been victims of domestic abuse in court are less likely to receive custody of their children than women who didn’t

i’m tired of seeing posts on feminism by both feminists and MRAs citing “gender bias in custody cases” as a problem we need to solve. women aren’t unfairly receiving custody more often. abusive men are unfairly receiving custody.

the fact is, if my dad had actually attended his court ordered anger management type classes, i would legally have been required to spend a portion of my time with him until i turned 18, even though he beat my mother and abused me.

don’t let anyone make you think that the scale isn’t still tipped toward men in a court of law.

sources: (1) (2)

[coeur-de-porcelaine]

Another fun fact : contrary to the MRA claim that women make false allegations of abuse to get leverage in divorce/custody cases, evidence shows allegations of abuse are actually rare, and substantiated in most cases. Out of the accusations that were found to be deliberate lies by the courts, most were fabricated by men (21%) vs women (1.3%).

[briannathestrange-deactivated20]

A real, actual, I-am-not-fucking-lying-to-you-this-truly-happened moment from the Christmas special Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa

[5weekdays]

ricky: great-grandma, you always know just what to say!

ricky’s great-grandma: dohuhohohwhehelghuhohokesynohehCHRISTMAS huahhahohoho

[hiddendriver]

I thought of this while i was driving today and almost drove into my mailbox

[punch-your-buns-deactivated2021]

“girls don’t have inherently sexual bodies, just let them wear shorts and tank tops when it’s hot out!”

Yes of course but also let’s acknowledge that there’s a reason that teenage girls are wearing shorts cut so short that the pockets hang out and tank tops cut so low that her bra is visible

There’s a reason that teenage girls are wearing these things and not teenage boys. There’s a reason that it’s next to impossible to find thigh-and-knee-length shorts for girls. There’s a reason that girls are shamed for “looking like a lesbian” when they dress modestly. There’s a reason that teenage girls are meant to expose as much skin as possible in the clothing they buy and it’s because GROWN MEN who design the clothes are INTENTIONALLY creating clothing and marketing sexualized clothing to CHILDREN.

GROWN MEN run the fashion industry and decide the trends and looks and styles of clothing for CHILDREN and for some children it’s comfortable, cut to fit well, designed to show some personality and reflect the wearer’s interest and for some children it’s skintight, ripped, cropped, low-cut, low-riding, and designed to show as much skin and body shape as possible

No little girl grows up wanting to go to school wearing shorts that are slightly bigger than her underwear. It’s GROWN MEN deciding this for her because that’s what they want to see. That’s what grown men have deemed acceptable and appropriate for teenage girls.

[sespursongles-deactivated201906]

For the record, the study I linked in my last post has a sample size of 4000+ subjects and shows that gender non-conformity in childhood (around age 3-5) “significantly and consistently” predicts teenagers’ sexual orientation (age 15). (And it might even predict it more than the results show, seeing as lesbians typically have their first same-sex experiences and discover their sexuality in their late teens.) It’s the first big study of its kind, assessing kids’ gender conformity in childhood then following them in teenagehood rather than asking gay / bi / straight adults how gnc they remember being when they were kids. It also says that levels of gnc-ness in early childhood are linearly correlated to the “exclusivity” of sexual attraction (i.e. straight kids are more gender conforming than bi kids, who are more gender conforming than gay kids.)  Straight kids who start out gnc also become gender conforming more quickly than bi kids, while gay kids either start conforming at an even slower rate, or become more gnc.

So this makes the “consistent, insistent, persistent” mantra that they use to recognise “REAL” trans kids even more chilling and homophobic, because this study shows that the more “persistent” you are in your childhood gnc-ness, the more likely you are to be exclusively attracted to the same sex. I wasn’t kidding when I said the transition of kids is tailor-made to target and erase gay children specifically.

[alienspriviledge-deactivated201]

This is interesting but has someone have an explanation for why gay kids tend to be more gnc than the others? If we agree that gender roles are not innate and sexuality is, how do the two connect from such a young age, before the kids know about sexuality?

[sespursongles-deactivated201906]

Just because kids don’t experience sexual attraction yet, doesn’t mean their sexual orientation isn’t already a part of them. As you say, sexuality is innate. Gay kids are already gay, straight kids are already straight, bi kids are already bi. Most people are very, very resistant to the idea of “gay children”, even though our entire society accepts (and enforces) the idea of straight children (by constantly teasing little kids about their het crushes, making babies wear all kinds of awful hetero clothes, I’m sure you can come up with a million examples). And the result is that we can’t talk about how being gay shapes your childhood experience, how gay children are probably already affected and alienated and hurt by heteronormativity in a way non-gay children aren’t. People who can’t even entertain the idea of “gay children” won’t be able to explain why gay adults often had different childhood experiences (for example, were more likely to be gnc) than non-gay ones. To find an explanation, they would first need to accept that homosexuality already exists in children and shapes our growing-up experience from the start.

From the study: “ From ages 2.50 to 4.75 years, girls and boys on average increasingly conformed to the behavioral norm of their own gender. “ (i.e. gender is indeed not innate and kids gradually learn which gender norms to follow.) But “Starting at age 3.50 years in girls and 2.50 years in boys, pre-lesbian / gay children exhibited significantly higher levels of gender nonconforming behavior than same-sex pre-heterosexual peers.” At 3 years-old, kids are already inundated with gender norms. In children’s books, fairy tales, toy catalogues, Disney movies, morning cartoons, their religion if they are taught one, their family and pretty much every adult couple around them…  These gender norms are so tightly linked to heterosexuality it would be hard for an adult to disentangle the two, let alone a toddler. More often than not, liking girly stuff means liking hetero stuff. Identifying with Disney princesses mean identifying with having a male love interest by the end of your story. A lot of girl toys involve being groomed to become a good housekeeper (to take care of your husband) with cooking utensils, toy brooms, etc; making yourself pretty (to attract a husband) with toy makeup and hair stuff; learning how to take care of a baby doll (for when you have your husband’s children), etc. And even at a very young age, there are already lesbian little girls who know that they don’t want a husband. (Even if the feeling only manifests itself as inarticulate discomfort, vaguely dreading your future married life, feeling different / lonely / rejected by all this hetero/girly stuff for some reason you can’t explain, which will probably make you want to reject it right back…)  Of course heterosexuality isn’t innately linked to liking dresses and long hair and the colour pink and glitter, so you could think there’s no connection between a girl child rejecting pink dresses & long hair & glitter and this child being gay, but when all this “girl stuff” is so intertwined with constant heteronormative grooming, then it makes perfect sense that most of the girls who reject it at age 3-4 are girls who will later realise they’re lesbians.

Basically the connection between kids’ different reactions to gender roles and their sexual orientation is the fact that gender is inherently heteronormative (= one of the main purposes of gender is to define heterosexuality as the norm) which means people who aren’t hetero will rightly come to understand (as we can see, from a very young age) that they are inherently excluded from gender norms, and people who don’t experience any hetero attraction at all will feel this the most. Which is what the study shows: straight kids are more gender conforming than bi kids who are more conforming than gay kids. But, again, to accept this conclusion we first need to accept that gay kids are already gay and this helps shape their childhood experience.

[alexandriad]

woman yelling at cat meme but make it ancient greek red figure pottery

[swirling-orbs-of-disorder]

From ancient to abstract, this one sure got around.

Japanese one made no sense to me until I finally saw the “sale sale/sasa lele” version. セール　セール。 But then it’s a meme so it has to be misspelled?  🤷‍♂️

[everyone-loves-purple]

tHERE ARE MEMES IN THOSE HIEROGLYPHICS

[fromsiberia]

Ohhhhhhh…. Chinese and greek are my favourite, but there is more!

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Today marks the 26th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre, in Montreal, Canada. A cowardly, misogynic act which left 14 promising women dead, simply because they were women:

Twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot 28 people, killing 14 women, before committing suicide. He began his attack by entering a classroom at the university, where he separated the male and female students. After claiming that he was “fighting feminism” and calling the women “a bunch of feminists,” he shot all nine women in the room, killing six. He then moved through corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom, specifically targeting women to shoot. Overall, he killed fourteen women and injured ten other women and four men in just under 20 minutes before turning the gun on himself.[1][2] His suicide note claimed political motives and blamed feminists for ruining his life. The note included a list of 19 Quebec women whom Lépine considered to be feminists and apparently wished to kill.[3]

After this despicable act, Canada adopted gun control measures. Since gun control measures were adopted there has not been another mass shooting killing more than 10 people in Canada. Since École Polytechnique there has only been 9 massacres in Canada; 9 in 26 years.

Please remember these women.

Tweets by the YWCA of Toronto

[worm-monger]

27 years ago today

[genevulva]

31 years today, December 6th 2020

[thefullestm00n]

[theweefreewomen]

[ID: a twitter thread by  Gon with the wind….like Ging @Satirony:

Marriage betweeen a man and woman was built in a way that benefits men far more than women. This is well studied.

If you’re a man marrying a woman, you need to be cognizant of this and make sure you *overcompensate* in order to make things as egalitarian as possible.

I emphasize overcompensating because there are aspects of relationships between men and women that far more often than not result in women doing more, because we live in a patriarchal and misogynistic society.

So you need to make sure you’re consciously doing more to compensate for the unseen things that she will most likely be doing.

And this is especially true in societies in which women also work outside of the home (so the past several decades in most Western societies).

And I refuse to have a dynamic that my parents, like a lot of late Baby Boomers, had.

One in which both the man and woman work outside the house, but the woman still does most of the child rearing and cleaning at home.

I know somebody is eventually gonna assume I’m saying this with ulterior motives and ask something stupid like “did she pick you?”

The answer is yes, she did. I’m married. Now go reflect on your inadequacies as a partner.

below is a shared gif of a woman taking a sip from a martini glass. end ID.]

[solarishashernoseinabook]

In practical terms this means:

know who the family doctor is (as well as dentist, optometrist, etc.) and when everyone had their last appointment so you can schedule the next. This goes for pets as well

know your kids shoe sizes. Seriously, I had a coworker complain that her husband got too-small boots for their kindergartener.

do grocery shopping

based off the above, be aware of everyone’s allergies/intolerances/diets/personal tastes

know how to cook and do your fair share

know how to do laundry, dishes, etc.

know when the bills are due and pay some of them

take an active role in planning holidays, vacations, etc. and budgeting for them

know your kids friends so you can arrange playdates

know their babysitter so you can arrange childcare

if your spouse does the cleaning most often, know when they tend to clean and help out. Do they sweep every day? Do they mop once a week or once a month? Help with that

know the location of everything in the house (cleaning supplies, kitchen utensils, tax forms, etc.) so that if your spouse is away, you can run the household solo without having to ask constantly where everything is

take an active interest in your spouse’s life and your kids lives

[gifbro]

[4gifs]

Soup-serving robot fail. [video]

[mistertotality]

Simone Giertz, the self-proclaimed “Queen of Shitty Robots.” She intentionally engineers terrible robots just for fun.

[blenderweaselhasopinions]

everything this woman makes is goddamn fantastic

[welcometonerdland-deactivated20]

[witwitch-deactivated20160508]

we probably lost a lot of medical knowledge during the witch hunts because of how many mid wives were persecuted, and how men took over the field of medicine. I bet a few hundred years ago a mid wife might actually have some kind of knowledge about conditions that affect women exclusively which we still haven’t bothered to research in our modern society.

[victoriassecretpolice-deactivat]

ok now I’m fucking mad

[vaervaf-deactivated20160101]

how many got killed cuz of witch hunts seems like youd have to kill a lot

[00000000000000000000000000000-d]

“It is estimated that at least 1, 000 were executed in England, and the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish were even fiercer in their purges. It is hard to arrive at a figure for the whole of the Continent and the British Isles, but the most responsible estimate would seem to be 9 million. It may well, some authorities contend, have been more. Nine million seems almost moderate when one realizes that The Blessed Reichhelm of Schongan at the end of the 13th century computed the number of the Devil-driven to be 1,758,064,176. A conservative, Jean Weir, physician to the Duke of Cleves, estimated the number to be only 7,409,127. The ratio of women to men executed has been variously estimated at 20 to 1 and 100 to 1. Witchcraft was a woman’s crime.

    Men were, not surprisingly, most often the bewitched. Subject to women’s evil designs, they were terrified victims. Those men who were convicted of witchcraft were often family of convicted women witches, or were in positions of civil power, or had political ambitions which conflicted with those of the Church, a monarch, or a local dignitary. Men were protected from becoming witches not only by virtue of superior intellect and faith, but because Jesus Christ, phallic divinity, died “to preserve the male sex from so great a crime: since He was willing to be born and to die for us, therefore He has granted to men this privilege. ” Christ died literally for men and left women to fend with the Devil themselves.” (pg 129-130) Woman Hating, Andrea Dworkin 

“The witches used drugs like belladonna and aconite, organic amphetamines, and hallucinogenics. They also pioneered the development of analgesics. They performed abortions, provided all medical help for births, were consulted in cases of impotence which they treated with herbs and hypnotism, and were the first practitioners of euthanasia. Since the Church enforced the curse of Eve by refusing to permit any alleviation of the pain of childbirth, it was left to the witches to lessen pain and mortality as best they could. It was especially as midwives that these learned women offended the Church, for, as Sprenger and Kramer wrote, “No one does more harm to the Catholic Faith than mid wives. ” The Catholic objection to abortion centered specifically on the biblical curse which made childbearing a painful punishment —it did not have to do with the “right to life” of the unborn fetus. It was also said that midwives were able to remove labor pains from the woman and transfer those pains to her husband—clearly in violation of divine injunction and intention both.” (pg 139-140) Woman Hating, Andrea Dworkin 

“The magic of the witches was an imposing catalogue of medical skills concerning reproductive and psychological processes, a sophisticated knowledge of telepathy, auto- and hetero-suggestion, hypnotism, and mood-controlling drugs. Women knew the medicinal nature of herbs and developed formulae for using them. The women who were faithful to the pagan cults developed the science of organic medicine, using vegetation, before there was any notion of the profession of medicine. Paracelsus, the most famous physician of the Middle Ages, claimed that everything he knew he had learned from “the good women.” (pg 140)  Woman Hating, Andrea Dworkin

****************get the PDF here *********************

Bolded sections are by me. Honestly I don’t think I need to explain much. We lost some of the most important women in the world, who were the pioneers of medicine for a “curse of eve”.  Basically saying if you relieve another woman’s pain we’re going to call you a witch and kill you “in the name of god” because having a child is punishment upon women and relieving their pain is illegal because this book written by men told me so.

Also check out the part where men can’t be witches because jesus and his “phallic divinity” “preserve the male sex”. 

[sparklyjacquelee]

Ever heard of the Voynich manuscript? Big, huge, herbal / medical / astronomical lexicon from the 1400s, depicting lots of naked women clearly performing rituals that serve medical functions, lots of them pretty clearly related to childbirth.

You know, this book that is written in a language that nobody has been able to read for 600 years, but nobody, and I mean NO MAN has ever even thought about the simple reality of WOMEN having written it. 

I found one blog post by a woman about how this text is very clearly written by women, and the knowledge within it has been completely annihilated or co-opted by men who now don’t even consider the possibility that a woman, or multiple women, could have written something like this.

Seriously, look it up. Naked women. Fat, short, in baths, all of it. And the entire academic world is absolutely convinced this must have been written by a man. In the wikipedia article, only male linguists and historians are mentioned, because only they matter. And every single one of their theories is laughingly phallocentric and simply wrong.  

They go so far as say that aliens wrote it before they consider that women actually had herbal and medicinal knowledge and passed that knowledge on, in secret, written in languages only they knew, so that no priest or holy man or inquisitor could read it and kill them. 

Open your eyes. This has been going on for hundreds of years. Women had to hide in the shadows, had to invent languages, just to avoid being killed by men for trying to help themselves and other women. This is reality.

[benyw]

It wouldn’t be the first time women have had to invent their own language because of the rights men withheld from us. 

[parthenogenon]

A blog post is good but how about a whole blog written by a woman who’s actually making progress on the translation.

[clit-club]

The Voynich manuscript is a book devoted to women’s health and medicine.

[parthenogenon]

I don’t know if the blog writer is the first person to make her discoveries, but wrt to Mr. Gibbs, I’m not letting him steal this limelight.

[whitepeopletwitter]

[ppetiteprincesse-deactivated202]

thats bc the New Zealand president is a woman . PERIODT. 🤚

[beautiful---nightmare]

It’s not really a fair comparison. New Zealand has a population of less than 5 million. There are nearly double the amount of people living in London

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

It’s fair. The money can always be found somewhere. Tax the billionaires and multi-millionaires and there would be more than enough to support every person in the country staying home for a few weeks.

[beautiful---nightmare]

It really isn’t though. They’re such a small country. And it’s not billionaires job to give money to everyone else. They should to their employees though. Like people who work for google or amazon who aren’t at work should still get sick pay from them but it’s not the governments job

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

And it’s not billionaires job to give money to everyone else

Why? They stole it from everyone else. If a government can’t support its people and allows a few to hoard money and resources, it’s a failed government.

[opabiniawillreturn-deactivated2]

most american billionaires don’t pay taxes anyway

[proud-homosexual-woman-deactiva]

Guillotine all billionaires

[wolfmachine]

God it amazes me how many people really believe that billionaires earned what they have or that they're entitled to keep it. They're thieves. How do so many people not see that?

[leninthesixth]

are we gonna do this "actually Amber Heard was the abuser" shit every two months until we die like is that it

[leninthesixth]

what do you all gain from defending a 55 year old man who was getting drunk and assaulting people in public even before Amber Heard was born? Depp is not only a violent asshole but also a creep who dated Winona Ryder when she was 17 and he was 26 and then Kate Moss when she was 20 and he was 31. Do you dumbasses really think if there was substantial proof of alleged abuse Amber Heard perpetuated Depp's lawyers wouldn't have used it to avoid paying a 7 million dollar alimony? (all of which Heard donated to charity by the way) Johnny Depp is near bankruptcy and he is trying to get his money back and you dumbass woke genzennials are helping him in his smearing campaign for free

[leninthesixth]

since this post is still going around i’m gonna leave this aricle here because it debunks all the allegations made by depp and his lawyers and provides sources so you can stop coming to my inbox telling me about the ways johnny depp was totally abused

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

For those who want to skip, the document detailing the abuse, which is nearly 300 pages long, is included here: https://variety.com/2019/film/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-abuse-threatened-kill-1203187472/

[depsidase]

[luncheon-aspic]

4:02 real kelp hours

[refinery29]

Watch: In a powerful Congresional speech, Sandra Bland’s mother called people who think they’re woke “the walking dead” because of how little we still know

The speech included a rousing call to action before the newly formed Congressional Caucus On Black Women & Girls. And her words were incredibly resonant, even if you think you know the whole story.

Gifs: Josh Begley

WATCH THE VIDEO

[ihatethatchick]

fucking hell, plz share this

[anothersavedsoul]

My heart hurts for these victims and this mother.

[firstfullmoon]

not to be all having a body is inherently terrible but sometimes its really just [the body is always a wound] [i wasn’t always this ugly it’s just the world on my body] [my body is a war nobody is winning] [what do we do with the body do we burn it do we set it in dirt] [suppose the body did this to us made us afraid of love] [the body has no thoughts the body soaks up love like a paper towel and is still dry]