Prepare for trouble!
Make it double!
To protect the world from devastation!
To unite all peoples within our nation!
To denounce the evils of truth and love!
To extend our reach to the stars above!
Team Rocket, blast off at the speed of light!
Surrender now, or prepare to fight!
Hence why men have to put up with physical abuse from women in public whilst said woman usually escapes legal and/or social repercussions.
Or how conventionally attractive men need to put up with the lustful stares/wolf whistling of women.
Or how conventionally unattractive men need to put up with glares of disgust/negative comments from women.
Or how men need to put up with accusations from women for looking in their direction, helping them, helping children, or (more stupidly), the act of sitting in such a way as to not destroy their gonads. Hell, these days men are actually being attacked in general just for being male, mostly by feminists.
Or really any form of misandry/gender role reinforcement/objectification/etc, that men continue to endure today.
I’m not saying that women don’t have their own problems. They do - but so, too, do men. Men require a private space just as much as women do, and the fact that they’re being denied as much is just one small example of the prejudice that men actually face.
Blind hatred for an entire race (rather than the people that actively work against you) is exactly why minorities (and for this example, hispanics) are so disliked in America. “They took our jobs!”
I think it’s hilarious when people criticize minorities for complaining about their oppressors with “hate breeds hate” like yeah lol why do you think they’re mad at you
But not all Americans think that way. Only idiots think that way. By attacking the people who DON’T do anything against you, yes, all you’re doing is breeding hatred. Both your own hatred for all minorities, as well as non-minorities starting to see you as horrible people for hating them for no reason (literally).
If “hate” breeds “hate” and that’s why minorities hate non-minorities, then how do you explain the non-minorities who are hated when they don’t hate minorities?
Yeah, I thought so. You’re talkin’ shit, as usual.
Doesn’t matter what your teacher thinks, as long as you do the work.
changing the date on your paper so your teacher doesn’t think you’re a procrastinator
Just always put the due date on the paper
When I do essays in university, I do one paragraph per day. Sometimes I take gap days, but I never do more than one per day, usually.
So my reference list usually has the access dates for all my online sources set over the course of a week.
Anonymous asked: You know why there aren't many women in politics? Because many women don't get in politics. You wanna know why there aren't many females doing construction. Because not many get into construction. Do you want to know why there aren't many female directors. Because not many get into directing. It's common sense. No one complains of lack of male nurses, secretaries. If you want a job to have more females stop complaining and get involved in thy career. Simple.
You can’t compare Rwanda to ANY Western country. You just can’t.
I’d have to disagree on this one. Rwanda, for example, has more women in politics than men, and many countries are close to half and half. This shows that evidently there ARE women who are interested in politics, but it’s a lot harder for women to succeed in that field because they’re more likely to be attacked for their looks than men are, and because women in politics receive much more gender-based criticism. I can’t speak from firsthand experience, but from what I know women who are directors often receive prejudice in the field. It’s not really a matter of interest.
-the Canadian one
I do, however, know from experience that in my social sciences course at uni, the politics class is the smallest. Mainly because the course itself is mostly female, and very few females picked the politics course (it has more males than females, despite females making up at least 3/4 of the course’s students). Of the females ON the politics course, very few are actually interested in politics in general (and just picked it due to an even lesser interest in sociology), and of the ones who are interested in politics, they aren’t interested in going INTO politics.
Yes, that’s only one example from one university (although I know from lecturers that the same pattern has shown through all the other years, and not just my own year - I saw a similar trend in the politics class I did in High School, too), but it’s a lot more applicable to Western Society than Rwanda is.
Socialism (and communism) are economic systems. They do not, and cannot, reflect the system of government and/or personal/political ideals of its leaders/people.
As a Latin American, I get really disappointed when I see people in the U.S. who are socialists. After all Latin America has passes through… I just can’t believe there are still people in the U.S. who believe socialism works.
Che Guevara used to rape women and kill innocent people. Seriously, he literally used to get horny with blood of the people he used to kill. He was a mass murderer thristy for blood. Fidel Castro isn’t so different. The Cuba Dictatorship killed about 87.000 people, and still kills to this day. According to Forbes, Fidel Castro is richer than the queen of England. Cubans are his slaves. Cubans work really hard and their wage is only 30 fucking dollars per month. 360 fucking dolars per year. Hell, even the daughter of Fidel Castro hates her father and truly believes he is a murderer.
Not to mention Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil, that are in their way to live in a dictatorship (although Venezuela is already one) and they have extreme violence. Venezuela is living in a civil war right now; Argentina has the biggest inflation in America Latina; Brazil has 50-70 thousand homicides PER FUCKING YEAR. I live in Brazil and the president is trying to censor the internet (her party created a law that regulates the internet), so maybe this is the last time I can complain about it here!
And then there are Americans who still think socialism works. GO FUCK YOURSELF. Socialism ruined Latin America and is till ruining and you still think socialism works! I would love to escape from here and move to Texas, because living in the U.S. is still way better than living here, but you fucking idiots don’t fucking realize that.
I just can’t believe that are still Americans who believe in socialism. I can’t believe it.
Oh, and also, Obama is fucking idiot who doesn’t even care what’s happening in Venezuela right now, and he’s also pro-Russia.
Sorry about the bad English. I’m not fluent yet.
High rates of crime in your country is a problem with the PEOPLE of your country, not the socialist economic system. Equally, Che Guevara’s personal issues do not in any way indicate the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the political or economic system of the country he fought for.
Using a person’s physical appearance to explain the motivations behind their actions is so incredibly illogical and altogether ignorant.
Why do people find this concept so difficult? It shows a complete lack of both knowledge and the desire to accumulate knowledge.
Yes, the elites in society are mostly men - that doesn’t mean they’re trying to keep women down because they’re men. They’re doing it for monetary reasons, the same way they do it to men (because yay, capitalism). They might use different tactics, but that’s only because they need to work different angles due to preconceived notions of what makes a gender (or indeed the preconceived socially-constructed notion of gender in general).
For that matter, a white person attacking a minority isn’t automatically a racist either. Just because his victim is a minority doesn’t mean his actions were racially-motivated.
A man hitting a woman isn’t automatically the villain, either.
A gay person complimenting you isn’t always trying to hit on you.
Quiet or unresponsive people aren’t automatically rude, either. A lot of times, they’re socially awkward people who don’t understand how to act in social situations. I myself find that I often miss opportunities to say things, even simple pleasantries, in conversation, because I feel so uncomfortably on the spot.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. If anyone reblogs this (which I’d be surprised at, quite frankly), feel free to add some more.
Just wanted to add a few things.
Patriarchy (n.): a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of men
And according to Princeton University:
Patriarchy is a multidimensional condition of power and status. Whyte’s 1978 comprehensive study examined 52 indicators of patriarchy, which corresponded to 10 relatively independent dimensions. The ten dimensions are:
- lack of property control by women
- lack of power of women in kinship contexts
- low value placed on the lives of women
- low value placed on the labor of women
- lack of domestic authority of women
- absence of ritualized female solidarity
- absence of control over women’s marital and sexual lives
- absence of ritualized fear of women
- lack of male-female joint participation in warfare, work, and community decision making
- lack of women’s indirect influence on decision making
There are undeniably societies in the world today that are patriarchies. A place like Saudi Arabia comes to mind as well as institutions like the Catholic Church in which women are not entirely excluded (i.e., nuns) but are kept from positions of real power (i.e., the priesthood and the papacy).
However, at least in the United States…
- women can (easily) control property: they can rent apartments, buy a house or land, own a business, and inherit and/or will their property to others.
- there are plenty of “housewives”/stay-at-home mothers, but women are typically expected to find a job and work for a living in the same way that men are, and there is no wage gap between male and female workers.
- though it’s hard to say given that domestic violence stories focus almost solely on male-on-female violence, I might argue that women often have more domestic authority than men; for example, they have more control of their family’s disposable income and are far more likely to get custody of their children in case of a divorce.
- "absence of ritualized female solidarity" - well, I think we know that’s not applicable to the US, if Tumblr is any indication.
- aside from states that have made abortion difficult to obtain, women control their own bodies and sexuality, and aside from where it is an issue of LGBT+ equality, women have the power to marry (and divorce) whom they choose, when they choose.
- Many industries (and certainly most offices that I’ve seen) are relatively evenly balanced between men and women. As for “community decision making,” women are more likely to vote than men, so while it would be nice to have more women running for office, women nevertheless have more of a say in who gets elected.
I realize I didn’t refute or address all ten points. Ultimately,however, women have the choice to wear the kinds of clothes they like; vote; pursue almost any career; drive a car; live where and with whom they want to; have children (or not); get married (or not); cut their hair; have sex with whom they choose, etc. While many people may criticize them for making what they deem “incorrect” or “inappropriate” choices, no patriarch or patriarchal authority is going to punish women for making them.
There is no patriarchy. There may be the vestiges of one, but SJWs and Tumblr feminists should ask the women who had to live coverture, or the girls and young women elsewhere in the world who are still forced to marry before their eighteenth birthday (or even puberty) what it feels like to live under a patriarchy.
Then maybe they’ll have something worth actually complaining about.
1. “Low value placed on the lives of women” - "Women and children first". That’s all that needs said. Women are placed, always, before men.
2. “Lack of indirect influence on decision making” - All this means, literally, is lacking the power to vote (“indirect influence” = representative democracy, the right to choose the person to represent you in government).
The rest of the points have been addressed, I think, in the original post. I just wish it was done in a better format (a direct list debunking each point, or addressing them side-by-side).
I absolutely hate when people use the “we were oppressed for centuries and therefore we have a right to be angry” argument, like, anywhere.
… it didn’t affect you, in ANY way. Literally. Stop using the “in the past we were treated badly therefore anyone who is of the same demographics as the oppressors of my people are the worst creatures imaginable.”
It’s as silly as the Scottish people hating English people ‘cause of the wars of independence (which we subsequently won, anyway). Seriously.
Grow up and stop justifying your angsty, victim-complex-fuelled hatred with such ridiculous excuses.
My sociology lecturer today, who is a huge, HUGE feminist… said “we’ve come to a point where men are actually treated worse than women”.
I could barely contain my feels there. While I disagree with feminism as a movement and the process of gendering a movement for equality, she’s the first academic I’ve seen who actually felt that men had it worse. They’re all usually under-educated or caught up in the misinformation of the media that they don’t even bother criticising it.
- broseph-ine asked:I would say you need feminism because you want there to be equal treatment in legal terms for sentencing (like things in regards to women assaulting men) and so that it can become more acceptable for men to speak up about such abuses. You're not "anti-feminist," you're just "anti-treating-women-like-fragile-daffodils" and that's okay. Just know there's a difference. Feminism = wanting *equal* rights & treatment for both men and women.
If only this were true. There has been too much well documented evidence to the contrary.
I’m half Indian (but I take after my white dad when it comes to skin color) and even I don’t wear...