Tracks
people who believe the whole “if a key opens a lot of locks it’s a good key, but if a lock opens to a lot of keys it’s a bad lock!!!” shit about sex
if my vagina is a lock, your dick sure as hell isn’t the key
because when you buy a lock, the key usually comes with it you fuckheads
as in
i have the fucking key to my own vagina, not you
and no im not letting you in because your dick smells like butts and misogyny“like butts and misogyny”
BUTTSANDMISOGYNY
(Source: combeferrerogavrocher)
Lawmaker Barred After Vagina Comment
File under: this would be funny if it weren’t so fucking sad.
Michigan House Republicans prohibited state Rep. Lisa Brown (D) from speaking on the floor after she ended a speech against a bill restricting abortions by referencing her female anatomy, the Detroit News reports.
Said Brown: “Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no.’”
Republicans said Brown was “offensive” and wouldn’t allow her to voice her opinion on a school employee retirement bill.
Responded Brown: “If I can’t say the word vagina, why are we legislating vaginas? What language should I use?”Oh, dear god, Michigan. Get it together.
I guess she should have called it her “special lady flower” like a proper adult.
DEAR GOD I CAN’T
I have been waiting for an opportunity to use this gif to express dismay at GOP-sponsored sexism and misogyny!
Discussing female anatomy is forbidden… unless you’re trying to legislate (against) it.
I. hate. everything.
Why Facebook's rape jokes are no laughing matter
[TRIGGER WARNING: rape jokes]
I feel like this is all I post about these days.
By Frances Ryan, New Statesman:
Have you heard the one about the struggling woman and the rapist trying to pin her down? Rape is funny. It’s quite the joke, and Facebook apparently doesn’t mind if you spend your time swapping fantasised tales of abuse.
In between talk of Greys Anatomy and the annoying ones from X Factor, the global social networking site is home to pages dedicated to discussing rape in a positive light. “You know she’s playing hard to get when your (sic) chasing her down an alleyway”,”Riding your Girlfriend softly, Cause you don’t want to wake her up” and other delights have been on the site for for months, places where fans can discuss strategies of forcing women into sex in a so-called “comic” way. That this is, according to Facebook, acceptable, is the truly sick joke.
In response to calls to take the pages down, the site released a statement declaring that “groups that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs — even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some — do not by themselves violate our policies.” A quick read of the site’s own terms and conditions confirms this is very much not the case. It is there in black and white with, “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence”. According to Facebook, talking about raping your friend’s girlfriend to see “if she can put up a fight” is neither violent nor hateful, and advocating such a scenario is a “belief”. Not for the first time, we are told rape is something to be trivialised — the special crime that can be actively promoted with the confidence that few will bat an eye.
It’s not a newsflash that the internet is home to some deranged, offensive language — in many ways, it is the place where good taste comes to die. A distasteful liberation comes from the anonymity, as the author is comforted by the knowledge that they cannot be seen behind the screen. It’s a sense of security that is often misleading, it being illegal to stir up hatred on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation. When it comes to hatred on the grounds of gender, however, there is no such legislation, with anyone free to whip up misogyny.
Be it Facebook policy or our own laws, abuse against women is treated differently; separated and viewed as lesser than that leveled at other marginalised groups. The rules that would rightly apply if the victim were black, Muslim or gay are deemed irrelevant if the victim is female. The hate spouted based on this factor is not a type that counts. Women, it seems, do not count.
We exist in a culture that views the abuse of women as something less than serious. Rape can be encouraged on global networking sites, just as t-shirts and hair products can be sold based on the concept of coming home to your boyfriend and being smacked round the face. Facebook says it with confidence — if directed at women, violence is a joke. But abuse is abuse. That which is based on gender should be seen not simply as offensive, but a hate crime like anything else.
I’d just like to add, when you go to report a violation on facebook you can choose hate speech as one of the options, and facebook has this to say:
“Facebook does not tolerate hate speech. While we encourage the discussion of ideas, institutions, events, and practices, it is a serious violation of our terms to single out individuals based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or disease.” [emphasis mine]
Facebook does not tolerate hate speech based on gender. So, I guess talk about raping women does not fall under the category of gender-based hate speech. What’s worse is that there are people who go on the site and attempt to combat the attitude by commenting and they are verbally attacked and threatened with rape and violence. HOW IS THIS NOT A FUCKING PROBLEM?? How is this not, at the very very least, hate speech??
Thank you, Facebook. Thank you so much. It’s really nice to see you jumping on the patriarchal, misogynistic, rape culture bandwagon.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2012: Stop slut-shaming.
“When we slut-shame, society is really talking about its discomfort with a woman being a fully actualized, subjective (as in, the opposite of an object), sexual being. We’re talking about a woman’s worth NOT being tied to the number of partners a woman has, her sexual identity, or her sexual desires. And the word “slut” is the ultimate short-hand to not only label a woman as wayward from what is acceptable but to also remove her right to govern the permissions to her body. Labeling a woman as slut, automatically takes away her authority, her voice, her power and any claim to the victim status.
(Source: kwillder)
You see, it was understandable for me to want to be a tomboy and do “boy” things—because men are better, after all. But for a guy to want to be feminine? Unthinkable. Now, while this double standard affects men negatively, it’s mired in misogyny—the idea, of course, is that there’s nothing worse than being a girl. Think about it. Girls can wear pants; boys can’t wear skirts. Girls can play with trucks, but the minute I caught one of my little boy cousins playing with a doll, he threw it across the room with a look of shame on his face. It’s demeaning to be female, and boys learn that from an early age.
The OBGYN I had told me I had to miscarry naturally KNOWING that I had only had mole pregnancies before and COULD NOT miscarry and the previous Dr’s I had had to remove to pregnancies for fear of further complications to me. The result of me having to miscarry naturally? I almost hemorrhaged to death in ANOTHER Dr’s office and had to have an emergency D&C performed with no pain medication, hemorrhaging, conscious, passing clots *literally* larger then the size of golf balls (I took pictures because the on call Dr thought I was being dramatic), JUST to make it to the hospital to have the ACTUAL D&C. And I ended up needing surgery 2 months later because they left sone of the tissue in and I bled and cramped for 2 months! DISGUSTING!!! Em PS mine wasn’t an ectopic pregnancy.There are actual fucking physicians in this world who won’t treat ectopic pregnancies.
I want to cry.
….pretty sure this is actually illegal. Like, if someone comes in to the ER, no matter who they are, what they need, if they are in immediate danger, you have to treat them. It’s problematic from an economic/insurance standpoint (like, logistically, sometimes it is hard to figure out how to pay/who can pay for services), but ultimately, you will get treated.
Actually, most states have conscience clauses that protect doctors who would rather let a woman die from an ectopic pregnancy or hemorrhage to death because of a miscarriage and they are fully within their rights to refuse treatment because of these clauses. AND, depending on the hospital you go to (whether it is affiliated with a church like many hospitals are) they have to refuse to treat you because they aren’t allowed to do certain procedures by the board of directors/ethics committee.
The nun who was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to take place to save a dying woman is a prime example of an ethics committee allowing an abortion in a hospital where they are not allowed to be performed without permission. The church excommunicated the nun because they didn’t think saving the life of the mother justified terminating the 11 week fetus….which would have died with the mother a few weeks later if the abortion had not been allowed. So two deaths, according to the church, would have been better than the one. The 27-year old woman who needed the abortion due to pulmonary hypertension already had four children, too.
Now, doctors can refuse to treat patients due to these conscience clauses without any legal ramifications, but the odds of another doctor being called in to take care of the patient is high. The problem with this, though, is that women end up waiting while in the process of a miscarriage for the doctor to arrive and treat them. I posted a story about a woman who went through a miscarriage and another doctor had to be called that wasn’t affiliated with the hospital she went to because it was a Catholic hospital and none of the doctors would treat her. I’m having trouble finding the link, but this woman was literally bleeding to death in front of these doctors while waiting for the other doctor to arrive and no one even offered her pain medication. Instead they kept talking about how interesting of a case study she was while she was dying. She survived because the doctor finally showed up and performed the D&C she needed but she could have died while waiting for it. AND THIS IS COMPLETELY LEGAL BECAUSE OF ANTI-CHOICE LEGISLATION.
In any other case, a person bleeding to death would be treated immediately, but because it happens to be a pregnant woman (whose fetus, I might add, was already dead) there are laws in place to protect doctors who would rather let her die because they want to “preserve their conscience”. Personally, I don’t see how letting someone die in front of you preserves one’s conscience when you have all the tools available to save that person’s life, but I guess you aren’t a person if you’re pregnant, only the fetus has any sort of value, not the mother of four who is going to die.
Love,
Rabble
