can’t believe we just opened for andrew w.k. holy shit this party hard

mylordshesacactus:

Everyone is missing the biggest problem here.

Fuck the ads. Fuck the links. Fuck the email stuff.

Yahoo explicitly forbids pornography and sexually suggestive material on their websites and all affiliates.

That means no more porn on Tumblr.

#okay i hadn’t posted about this debacle yet #but no porn is crossing a line

rip dreaming ant

typewriter-ribbons:

inthemidstofmonsters:

ssaravishing:

worths:

this is my favorite picture ever

ughhhhhh.

damn

NOPE. As someone who’s been addicted to cigarettes and cutting, I reject basically all of the assumptions of this post.

The link between attractiveness and worthiness. The link between love and one’s ability to manage coping mechanisms. Just no. I know this was supposed to be sweet and caring and selfless and romantic, but it’s just gross and oversimplified. Stop. Ew.

i must be ugly because i cut and unhealthy because i smoke. what a lovely set of assumptions. maybe my cutting is beautiful. maybe my smoking keeps me healthy. it’s all coping skills and medication and how the fuck are we all patting ourselves on the back for standing in judgement? seriously not any of our business

gothlolita:

im Sorry but you two cant get the marriage. the bible said Adam and Eve not matthew and ashley. come back when youve legally changed your names

‘b3tch plz. wut u kno abt post-core.’

thatfeministdyke:

legally-bitchtastic:

thatfeministdyke:

I am a non-binary trans*androgynous boi, and I really like your blog. I totally agree with you that cis men cannot be feminists, but I disagree when you say that trans men cannot be feminists because they are men, and feel like it erases a lot of their experiences and struggles.
I understand why you say that, because trans men are often still grouped in with women and seen as “men lite” because of their birth assigned gender. However, there are a lot of reasons why trans men totally have the right to call themselves feminists even though they are men.

First and foremost, there are a lot of trans men who don’t take hormones or have top surgery, either because they are not yet able to do so, or choose not to do so. This doesn’t make them any less of a man. However, because of their appearance they are most likely not going to benefit from male privilege and will still suffer the oppression of the patriarchy.

Secondly, even for trans men with male privilege, the majority of them still spent a good chunk of their lives suffering patriarchal oppression before they transitioned. Those experiences do not get erased just because the way they are read now matches their gender.

And the last point I want to make is that trans men still suffer under the patriarchy in ways that cis men do not, such issues with work conditions if they are outted, health insurance coverage, douchey doctors, etc. It certainly doesn’t make them any less of a man, but they often have to face situations and issues that are a direct result of the patriarchy that cis men do not have to deal with.

So I hope you take those points into consideration. You said yourself that feminism if for those who are directly oppressed by patriarchy,and said that non-binary folks can be feminists (even though they aren’t women either). For as long as transphobia exists, trans men will experience some of that oppression. Maybe not in the same way that women do, but in different, equally valid ways.

— evanthelezbro

I dunno. I’m opening this up to my followers, what do you guys think?

It would be great to get the opinions of some trans and cis feminists on this.

I’m inclined to agree with Evan that trans* men definitely suffer from the patriarchy and even though they are men, they spent a good portion of their lives being seen and treated as girls/women and so they know the way the patriarchy oppresses women from personal experience just as much as a cis woman does. The fact that they are not actually women doesn’t mean that those experiences weren’t real.

“they spent a good portion of their lives being seen and treated as girls/women”

This keeps being brought up and I couldn’t figure out why it was making me uncomfortable but now I think it’s because it’s the same thing that’s used as an excuse to peg trans women as having male privilege.

this. 1000x this. if yr argument involves a call to essentialism based on birth assignment it is a shitty phobic argument. trans men are men! this argument reeks of male privilege and is more examples of trans men taking up space in women’s struggles, space that is often not hospitable to trans women like me.

zuky:

thesmithian:

…[some] may not remember what made Iran-Contra such an extraordinary scandal. The Reagan administration “raised money privately” by selling weapons to a sworn enemy of the United States. Why? Because it wanted to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. And when I say “illegal war,” I mean that quite literally—Congress told the Reagan administration, in no uncertain terms, that Reagan could not send money to the Contras. Period. The Reagan administration, unrestrained by laws and the Constitution, did so anyway, and much of the president’s national security team ended up under indictment.

more.

Reagan knew everything. However, I bet this Time magazine piece doesn’t get into the juiciest part of Iran-Contra, which is that in the 1980s the CIA put into operation a crack cocaine pipeline to import narcotics from Central and South America and distribute it in US inner cities. This is not a “conspiracy theory”, this is a documented conspiracy, most rigorously researched and reported by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Gary Webb, whose series in the San Jose Mercury News and subsequent book “Dark Alliance” literally got him killed. To me, that’s the story of Iran-Contra: not that Reagan sold weapons to Iran, but that the US government imported and sold crack to Black America, as part of an arms and drugs trade which funded war in the Third World and which devastated lives and filled prisons in the USA.