casual-isms:

activistaabsentee:

madonnax:

June 1987, Madonna was rushed to the Cedars Sinai hospital for an X-ray after her then-husband—Sean Penn hit her across the head with a baseball bat. At the time, they had been having a heart-to-heart talk about reconciling.

Madonna did not make an official complaint because Penn was about to serve a short jail term for attacking a film extra and violating the probation he’d been given for punching a fan. It was a decision she would come to regret. In the late afternoon of December 28, 1988, Penn scaled the wall surrounding the Malibu house and found Madonna alone in the master bedroom.

According to a report filed by Madonna with the Malibu sheriff’s office, the two began to quarrel. Penn told her he owned her “lock, stock and barrel”. When she told him she was leaving the house, he tried to bind her hands with an electric cord. Screaming and afraid, Madonna fled from the bedroom. Penn chased her into the living room, caught her and bound her to a chair with heavy twine. Then he threatened to shave her hair. Penn was “drinking liquor straight from the bottle” and the abuse went on for nine hours, during which he smacked and forced Madonna to perform a “degrading sex act” on him.

He went out to buy more alcohol, leaving Madonna bound and gagged. Some hours later, he returned and continued his attacks, then finally untied her. Madonna then fled the house and ran to her car. Penn ran after her and was banging on the windows of her Thunderbird while she spoke to police on her mobile phone. Fifteen minutes later, she staggered into the sheriff’s office.

Wow. I had no idea this had ever happened. Makes me look at Sean Penn a lot differently, even if he’s a more stable less ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING person now…

Friendly reminder that Sean Penn and other abusive white celebrities are not demonized the way that Chris Brown is and when Rihanna said she still loved Chris Brown people were ready to hang her. But Madonna gets all the sympathy in the world.
#double standard

Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can mobilize an entire society in violent hate against me.

sheresists:

Language is never neutral. 

(Source: genderbitch, via misandryspice)

girljanitor:

ultralaser:

nbcnews:

Teen’s invention could charge your phone in 20 seconds

(Photo: Intel)

Waiting hours for a cellphone to charge may become a thing of the past, thanks to an 18-year-old high-school student’s invention. She won a $50,000 prize Friday at an international science fair for creating an energy storage device that can be fully juiced in 20 to 30 seconds.

Read the complete story.

the complete story, like what, her name?

Eesha Khare, 18, of Saratoga, Calif., received the Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award of $50,000 for the invention of a tiny energy-storage device.

getting real tired of these ‘brown teen invents magic but we don’t list her name until paragraph three’ articles.

bolded

(via boehner-trollololll)

(Source: 3swallows, via dearabbynormal)

man scrolling through tumblr sees a feminist rant about hating men

iphisquandary:

plot twist: the man thinks, ah, she is simply expressing her frustration as a member of an oppressed group, whilst hating the construction of masculinity that was designed to keep her down, not necessarily all individual men such as myself…this is absolutely not the same thing as sexism and not a personal attack on me *keeps scrolling*

(via thatfeministdyke)

senjougahara:

bommiesbread:

sentimentalsaturdays:

Okay. Let me clear the fuck out of this shit, because it is REALLY pissing me off.

Psy was an extremely well-known, well-respected musician WELL before Gangnam Style was even fucking thought of. He’s one of the senior musicians of Korea and he gets a lot of respect for his fearless stages and the way he writes songs to say whatever the hell he wants and believes, regardless of the Korean public’s extremely judgmental eye. I’m so sick of the way he’s being treated all around the world ever since Gangnam Style went viral, he’s just being called here and there to do the dance and whatever and then being sent off like he’s just a comedy dud. When he came on Ellen, she didn’t even bother fucking introducing him, he had to interrupt and ask to introduce himself. He came out on stage and she literally just asked him to teach the dance before he even said anything. Like that is so flat out disrespectful are you kidding me.

Point being, before you ignorant ass little fucks decided he was the new laughingstock of the world and decided all on your own that he was just some annoying, talentless little comedy figure, get your fucking facts straight. Learn some respect, especially to the people that deserve/have already earned it.

SOMEONE FINALLY UNDERSTANDS PREACH IT

Not to mention how skewed this dumbass headline is. Yeah, let’s focus on the fact that a native Korean doesn’t know what herpes is rather than the fact that when it was explained to him, he took it like a champ. “He said I’m like the herpes… that keeps coming back. I think it’s really cool. Thank you.” That was Psy’s response to this incredibly rude shit BJA said. Let’s completely disregard the fact that he even knows enough English from studying in the US for some years to come on these shows and take this shitty treatment with such a good attitude. Psy is a satirist. Gangnam Style was satirical. But he has to come on these shows that only care about his funny faces, funny dances and funny personality and he can’t do anything about it.

Nobody takes him seriously just because he’s not singing in English, because it’s so easy to strip what they know him for of its significance and just look at the fat guy shaking his hips and think that’s all that matters. Nobody takes him seriously because they don’t “get it,” and they don’t want to try to get it, either. And it pisses me off.

(Source: tumblingmusical, via casual-isms)

racismschool:

Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide (pdf & additional info)

This study done by Brandeis finds that the biggest determining factor in the wealth gap between the two races is home ownership. According to the study, the four key reason for the difference is:

• Because residential segregation artificially lowers demand, placing a forced ceiling on home equity for AfricanAmericans who own homes in non-white neighborhoods.
• Because whites are far more able to give inheritances or family assistance for down payments due to historical wealth accumulation, white families buy homes and start acquiring equity an average eight years earlier than black families
• Because whites are far more able to give family financial assistance, larger up-front payments by white homeowners lower interest rates and lending costs; and
• Due to historic differences in access to credit, typically lower incomes, and factors such as residential segregation, the home ownership rate for white families is 28.4 percent higher than the home ownership rate for black families

Also according to the study, the suggested ways to correct this injustice is: Public policy can play a critical role in creating a more equitable society and helping all Americans build wealth. College loans, preferential home ownership, and retirement tax policies helped build opportunities and wealth for America’s middle class. Medicare and Social Security have protected that wealth. While the bold vision of policymakers, advocates, and others interested in social and racial justice is needed to develop a precise policy agenda, we believe the following broad public policy and institutional changes are critical to closing the gap:

• Home ownership - The data in this report clearly target home ownership as the biggest driver of the racial wealth gap. We need to ensure that mortgage and lending policies and fair housing policies are enforced and strengthened so that the legacy of residential segregation no longer confers greater wealth opportunities to white homeowners than it does to black homeowners. As our nation moves towards a majority people of color population, increasingly diverse neighborhoods must deliver equitable opportunities for growing home equity. 
• Income - This report identifies the importance of stable, family-supporting jobs and increasing incomes as a prime avenue for building wealth. To address the gap caused by income disparity, proven tools should be fully implemented at the national, state, and local levels, including raising the minimum wage, enforcing equal pay provisions, and strengthening employer-based retirement plans and other benefits. 
• Education - It is clear that differential educational opportunities and rewards are further widening the racial wealth gap. We need to invest in affordable high-quality childcare and early childhood development so every child is healthy and prepared for school. We need to support policies that help more students from low-and moderate-income families and families of color attend college and graduate. And we need to value education as a public good and invest in policies that do not leave students strapped with huge debt or a reason to drop out.
• Inheritance - Due to the unearned advantages it transmits across generations, inheritance widens inequality and is a key driver of the racial wealth gap. If we truly value merit and not unearned preferences, then we need to diminish the advantages passed along to a small number of families. Preferential tax treatment for large estates costs taxpayers and provides huge benefits to less than 1 percent of the population while diverting vital resources from schools, housing, infrastructure, and jobs. Preferential tax treatment for -6-dividends and interests are weighted toward wealthy investors as is the home mortgage deduction and tax shielding benefits from retirement savings. 

It is time for a portfolio shift in public investment to grow wealth for all, not just a tiny minority. Without that shift the wealth gap between white and black households has little prospect of significantly narrowing. A healthy, fair, and equitable society cannot continue to follow such an economically unsustainable trajectory.

This study is particularly disheartening in light of recent events. Those who were already at the bottom, were the target of…well, keeping them at the bottom.

(via misandryspice)

(Source: rhiannonmair, via thatfeministdyke)

In a faculty/staff summer immersive course on digital humanities. Discussion: Yahoo acquiring Tumblr. 
Older, white, male professor upon hearing that Tumblr has more active users than the NY Times and Washington Post combined: 

“I mean, what do they mean by active? I read the NY Times everyday and I talk to people about it. That’s more active than Tumblr I’m sure.”

sourcedumal:

blackwithflowers:

blackwithflowers:

I think Black people are not afforded the luxury of existing without being pigeonholed into an aggressive state of being. Many times Black people are displayed as hyper-aggressive and because of this display we create a mentality that were stuck with hyper-aggressiveness. 

That isn’t to say that being strong, tough, or aggressive are bad things, they come with our survival. But the vulnerability  pain, and gentleness that Black people reveal are not present many times in the media or even in our homes. The luxury of intimacy with other people is so small in comparison to the thousands of images of us being strong and “animalistic” (by intimacy I mean without guards, barriers, being invested with other people without a facade to what you are or layers you create.)

Similar to the phrase ”carefree black girls and boys”, I wanted to give a safe space to vulnerablity of Blackness to be  on display

————————————————————————————

Genteel, Romanctic, Poetic, Ethereal, intimate and vulnerable imagery of Black people.

___________________________________________

Submissions are highly welcomed!

—————————————————————

1.Jourdan Copeland|Source

2. Men by Eric Nehr | Under The Influence Magazine | Source

3.Jessie Adore|Source

4. Solange Knowles by Dominic Hayden-Route for Oyster Magazine | Source

Signal booossttt ??

Yes.

Genteel.

A word never used for Black people.

We need this

(via fuckyeahfeminists)

theuppitynegras:

veganrantss:

White people get mad when you wear a band t shirt of a band you don’t listen to, but they’re fine with wearing headdresses from cultures they know and care nothing about.

(via dkyubey)

thesexuneducated:

rosalarian:

Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy, in case you hadn’t heard. How dare she remove those ticking time bombs from her chest, amiright? Like, hasn’t she learned by now that her body is public domain and we all get to vote on what she does with it? Sheesh, how selfish can ya get.

TW: suicide

I have to say, I really disagree with how this cartoon is positioning Angelina Jolie’s very public choice to undergo a preventative double mastectomy. First and foremost, I don’t believe the issue is about Jolie’s agency surrounding her body - the op is absolutely correct in saying that Jolie does have the right to make whatever choice she would like concerning her body. However, her choice to do this is suggestive of a greater problem. The bodies increased medicalization is making “health” more of an individual’s responsibility than ever before. The era of neoliberalism has made it so bodies with breasts have to take it upon themselves to prevent cancer, rather than a collective effort between institutions and individuals to more actively and holistically look to preventing cancer entirely. Instead of focusing on what is causing cancer in the first place, the notion that a person needs to take it upon themselves to undergo incredibly expensive, potentially dangerous and invasive surgery is being glorified in this instance as the new and ethically “correct” thing to do. 

Another aspect to understand here is privilege. Angelina Jolie has the privilege of paying the exorbitant fees to the nations best doctors to run the necessary genetic testing, have the multiple surgeries she likely has undergone to ensure that she remains looking physically “normative”, pay for the necessary medications and for the necessary care to ensure a speedy recovery. In todays market, with the current prices of both medical insurance and medical fees, Jolie is in a very unique socioeconomic position. So what does this say to other people with an 87% chance of breast cancer who find themselves in a different socioeconomic position? Should they make the financial sacrifices, on top of the others that they are surely making, in order to reduce their chances of breast cancer? Furthermore, what this cartoon is suggesting is that if a person has an 80% chance of any kind of health concern, that they should be encouraged to do the “necessary” thing to avoid that. So, since we all have a 100% chance of dying, should we all commit suicide? This may sound extreme and I am certainly not trivializing suicide by any means, but this cartoon is situating Jolie’s decision in a logic that suggests otherwise. 

If a person has a high chance of any kind of cancer, should they too remove that part of the body, if living is still possible after its removal? Preventative lymph node removal, preventative ovarian removal, preventative testicular removal? I think this a travesty in many ways. As I said before, why does the responsibility of ones health fall upon the shoulders of the individual when it is much more than just genetics that are contributing to our increased cancer rates? Why isn’t there a greater focus on the environment? On our corrupt food supply? On pollution? On the leading causes of stress and fatigue, all of which are contributing factors to death. 

This isn’t about Angelina Jolie’s individual decision (which, however, I would argue that we do have the right to analyze as she has very publicly positioned her choice as one that is in alignment with her work as an activist) for me its about the continued discourse around health, privilege and the neoliberal notion of individual responsibility continuing to create health narratives that encourages people to internalize notions of health and quality of life, rather than do what desperately needs to done, and that is radically change the way we are currently existing on this planet, radically change the way we are approaching “solutions” and begin to recognize collective responsibilities, removing ourselves from ahistorical analyses of health statistics, looking directly at the way in which neoliberal capitalism and globalization are absolutely contributing to poor health internationally, and radically change knowledge production, particularly around health. 

Furthermore, it isn’t just about what Jolie has said about her decision, but about what and how institutions of power are going to manipulate and spin this instance of a preventative medicinal choice (and choice here is illusive, there is a great deal that has not been mentioned as to the coercive forces at work leading up to Jolie’s decision) in order to favor and to shift discussions of breast cancer into a different, increasingly unequal and gendered direction.