The Death Defying Double Somersault of Love



Eve and Adam

soycrates:

Eve chooses to have an open discussion with the serpent instead of ignoring them and assuming their opinion is wrong. The serpent respects Eve enough to discuss this issue with her and offer her a choice; God only commanded Eve, dictating what she should and should not do. It should really come as no surprise that when the serpent says “Why shouldn’t you eat from the tree of knowledge?” Eve would respond, “You know what? Absolutely no reason. Knowledge is empowering. The moment someone tells you that they don’t want you to be informed, you know you’re in an abusive relationship”. Eve is the first to have knowledge, before Adam, and even then she is the one to introduce it to him. 

They suddenly realize that a demanding and manipulative person has been keeping them naked and secluded in a garden. You have to be pretty drugged up to not realize that you’re frolicking naked in a garden. God lied to them and said they would die if they ever ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

Eve is possibly the first and most important rational skeptic character in major works that have been translated to the English language. She is the mother of questioning.

nobullnobucksvegan:

Easy Vegan Halloween/Fall Recipes:
Classic Caramel Apples
Eerie Banana Mummies
Witch’s Brewthie
Apple Bites You!
Terrifying Pumpkin Cupcakes (use store bought frosting if needed)
Scary-as-shit Braincakes
Spooky Pizza Ideas (use a basic pizza sauce and a thicker version of this easy cheeze sauce to make it cheaper and quicker!)
Menacing Medjool Rolo Knock-Offs
Frightening Pumpkin Smoothie for 2 (sans chia seeds and blackstrap molasses - share it with a ghost!)
Batty Pancake Idea
Mashed Bootato Ghosts
Stuffed Jack-O-Peppers
Tentacle Pot Pie
Try a vegan creamed broccoli or butternut squash soup, grab a piping hot cider, and get inventive with all of the wonderfully ghoulish green things you can make with green veggies. Stick spooky eyes on everything.

nobullnobucksvegan:

Easy Vegan Halloween/Fall Recipes:

Try a vegan creamed broccoli or butternut squash soup, grab a piping hot cider, and get inventive with all of the wonderfully ghoulish green things you can make with green veggies. Stick spooky eyes on everything.

Everyone is a “liberal feminist”. Not everyone is an actual feminist.

soycrates:

I don’t want to call this an “unpopular” opinion, because way too many people on the internet have complaints about feminism already (so the criticism and even outright hatred of feminism is not in fact unpopular or uncommon), but I will say that it’s probably a controversial one, especially in regards to the beliefs and values of many of my followers. However, I feel the need to say it, because I see a lot of posts that make assumptions about who is a feminist and what is feminism, and they are assumptions I don’t find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with. I’ll start off with giving a broad definition of what I mean when I say “liberal feminist” in the title:

Liberal feminism is an individualistic form of feminist theory, which primarily focuses on women’s ability to show and maintain their equality through their own actions and choices (political, social, economic, personal)

When most pro-feminist people define feminism, they say it is the belief that women should have equal rights to men (both under the law and within social, political, and economic situations). This is a definition so basic that pretty much anyone who isn’t totally anti-women would say their values are in agreement with. You will probably meet very few (if any) people who openly say “I don’t believe women should have equal rights to men” (and when you do, you don’t really have to wonder whether or not they’re a feminist, it’s pretty clear). Generally speaking, unless someone is openly sexist, they will say that they are for women having equal rights legally, equal payment for equal work, the ability to run legitimately in political campaigns (as well as the right to vote), and the right to be treated socially as autonomous individuals with thoughts, feelings, desires, and opinions (and not merely objects for male amusement). 

Since every reasonable person will agree with the fundamental tenets of women’s rights, I don’t think it’s responsible or correct to claim that these are all it takes for someone to be a feminist. Everyone is a “liberal feminist” in a sense. But if all it took to be a feminist was to agree with basic liberal feminism, we wouldn’t need the term. It would be nearly synonymous with “human being” and hold absolutely no weight or connotation whatsoever. If everyone was actually a feminist (or if the majority of people were actually feminists), we would no longer require a feminist movement. We would have equality at our doorstep.

In order to actually be labeled a “feminist”, I think it should require at least agreeing with, or sympathizing with, one of the following:

  • The belief that society is organized in a patriarchal manner (society is chiefly organized around male authority figures) and that this is damaging or worthy of changing

  • Masculinity and femininity are concepts maintained and propagated because they are useful tools in organizing people (not by merit of any of their actual skills) and making sure that society adheres to gender roles - they cause more harm than they are worth

  • It is important to criticize traditional scientific discourse as being historically biased towards a male perspective (in biology, bioethics, psychology and sociology especially)

  • Society nurtures an implicit bias which is more likely to promote and praise works/media produced by men and from male perspectives than work produced by women and women’s perspectives (in television, film, novels, plays, music and visual arts).

  • Standardized concepts of language, formal logic, and similar systems can and have been tailored to privilege predominantly male-oriented perspectives. How we talk about good reasoning skills, or how we talk about the use of grammar, for instance, are created with traits associated with masculinity. Even our very concept of emotion and emotional reasoning has negative gendered perspectives in it.

  • Men are not more entitled to certain career positions just because of their gender, so efforts to hire more women are not “Women stealing my job” but simply “A woman getting the job”. Until we exist in a system that truly hires people based on skill and experience without gendered biases, programs, mentorships, and other efforts to hire women will be necessary and in line with promoting equality.

There are many more perspectives I could list, but I think if someone cannot agree with any of the above points, and can’t agree with or approve of the kind of reasoning behind them, it wouldn’t make any sense to call that person a feminist, even if they agree with liberal feminism.

Making liberal feminism the only standard one has to meet to be called a feminist is setting the bar way too low. If we accepted this as the only standard for feminism, it would be extremely easy for people with legitimately sexist views to correctly call themselves feminists.

It makes “feminism” = “just being okay with women’s equality” and not actively challenging a male-dominated world. 

After studying feminism in an academic setting, there were many ideas I agreed with and many I disagreed with. I still feel that I disagree with enough feminist ideology to not fully call myself a feminist, despite promoting many feminist ideas and believing that women should have political, social, and economic equality to men. (And sometimes I do find it offensive that people make remarks about how “girls who won’t call themselves feminist are internalizing misogyny/don’t actually understand what feminism is/just trying not to anger anyone or get called a feminazi bra-burning lesbian” when I feel I’ve spent a lot of time and consideration coming to terms with my views on modern feminist theory)

I’m hoping to hear from some of my followers about how they feel concerning this belief. If you think I’m wrong and want to let me know why, if you feel you agree with me on some points but not others, or if you fully agree with me and want to add commentary, please feel free to do so.

womenwhokickass:

BREAKING: Malala Yousafzai Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Malala, now 17, was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman two years ago in her home country of Pakistan after coming to prominence for her campaigning for education for girls.
She won for what the Nobel committee called her “heroic struggle” for girls’ right to an education.
She is the youngest ever winner of the prize. (x)

womenwhokickass:

BREAKING: Malala Yousafzai Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Malala, now 17, was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman two years ago in her home country of Pakistan after coming to prominence for her campaigning for education for girls.

She won for what the Nobel committee called her “heroic struggle” for girls’ right to an education.

She is the youngest ever winner of the prize. (x)

In all the Western media craze over the young Pakistani activist Malala, there is a key point ignored about her: She is not only a Muslim feminist, she is a socialist with Marxist tendencies. In her own words: “I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.”
soycrates:

a-certain-scientific-blogger:

vegan-vulcan:

alchemyjones:

danaykroyd:

these are both still male dominated like……….this is wrong this is not more women than men look its plain and simple wtf

Men, despite dominating STEM fields, demonstrating that they do not even have a basic grasp on math.

yeah “even mix” means about 50-50, kay? And “more women” means there would be like, you know, more women than men. Like greater than 50%. It’s okay boys, math is hard for some people. It’s not your fault.

I did that thing that involves doing the braining with the brain thing and took 2 seconds to google the article to see where it came from. And surprise surprise, the actual result was OP being too dumb to understand how to take screenshots, and purposely cut off over half of the bullet points to shit out their biased bullshit all over tumblr for people who are equally as dumb to eat it up. 

http://www.iseek.org/careers/womenstem.html

I’m just going to reblog this to explain my complaints that I already explained over messages, but:
just because they have statistics on fields that are dominated by women, doesn’t make it cool to post database administrators or biological scientists in that category. Just because (no fucking surprise) most nurses are women doesn’t mean 37 is suddenly a number larger than 50. They have no right to list a 37% female dominated field under a heading that claims “not all STEM fields are dominated by men”. I’m pretty sure we also didn’t need this fact sheet to tell us that most nurses are women, or that women are particularly employed for careers that entail “spending a considerable amount of time standing or sitting and performing tasks that may be repetitive” with little room for being promoted to a higher level of pay
The statistics don’t talk about which career levels and what specific tasks these women have, and I think we would get a much better picture of women in STEM fields if it did. 
The exact same article makes claims like: “But that doesn’t mean it’s hard for women to get jobs in those fields”, “women are less likely to promote themselves”, “Let’s face it: men and women have different interaction styles” so women should “Read up on gender differences in communication” because it’s not like women and men speak the same fucking language ever

soycrates:

a-certain-scientific-blogger:

vegan-vulcan:

alchemyjones:

danaykroyd:

these are both still male dominated like……….this is wrong this is not more women than men look its plain and simple wtf

Men, despite dominating STEM fields, demonstrating that they do not even have a basic grasp on math.

yeah “even mix” means about 50-50, kay? And “more women” means there would be like, you know, more women than men. Like greater than 50%. It’s okay boys, math is hard for some people. It’s not your fault.

I did that thing that involves doing the braining with the brain thing and took 2 seconds to google the article to see where it came from. And surprise surprise, the actual result was OP being too dumb to understand how to take screenshots, and purposely cut off over half of the bullet points to shit out their biased bullshit all over tumblr for people who are equally as dumb to eat it up. 

http://www.iseek.org/careers/womenstem.html

I’m just going to reblog this to explain my complaints that I already explained over messages, but:

  • just because they have statistics on fields that are dominated by women, doesn’t make it cool to post database administrators or biological scientists in that category. Just because (no fucking surprise) most nurses are women doesn’t mean 37 is suddenly a number larger than 50. They have no right to list a 37% female dominated field under a heading that claims “not all STEM fields are dominated by men”. I’m pretty sure we also didn’t need this fact sheet to tell us that most nurses are women, or that women are particularly employed for careers that entail “spending a considerable amount of time standing or sitting and performing tasks that may be repetitive” with little room for being promoted to a higher level of pay
  • The statistics don’t talk about which career levels and what specific tasks these women have, and I think we would get a much better picture of women in STEM fields if it did. 
  • The exact same article makes claims like: “But that doesn’t mean it’s hard for women to get jobs in those fields”, “women are less likely to promote themselves”, “Let’s face it: men and women have different interaction styles” so women should “Read up on gender differences in communication” because it’s not like women and men speak the same fucking language ever
evoena asks: hello again, im sorry to pester you, but i have exams in a week or so and i was wondering if you had any essays up your sleeve that are written particularly well, as I think it is just my writing style that I fall down on. Thank you so much for any help.

elucipher:

well-written essays. okay.

i don’t know how to quantify or qualify what makes these stand out to me. some are cool and arch and elegant, and some are rough and jagged and white-hot with fury, some are scientific, some are intimate. for some it’s to do with the voice and others it’s the rhythm or the structure or the lexicon or the ways of looking. i’ve included links to all of them—if you’re searching for stylistic inspiration i’d suggest rifling through until you find one that hooks you.  

landlocked-selkie:

biorobo:

slyjinks:

pyrositshere:

internetgoose:

I’m gonna depress the hell out of all of you. ready? ok go

so, that “stop devaluing feminized work post”

nice idea and all

but the thing is, as soon as a decent number of women enter any field, it becomes “feminized,” and it becomes devalued.

as women enter a field in greater number, people become less willing to pay for it, the respect for it drops, and it’s seen as less of a big deal. it’s not about the job- it’s about the number of women in the job.

observe what happened with biology. it’s STEM, sure, but anyone in a male-dominated science will sneer at the idea of it being ‘for real,’ nevermind that everyone sure took it more seriously when it was a male dominated field. so has happened with scores of other areas; nursing comes to mind

so the thing is, it’s not the work or the job that has to be uplifted and seen as more respectable. it will never work out, until people start seeing women as respectable

but there’s a doozy and who the fuck knows if it’s ever happening in my life time

"observe what happened with biology. it’s STEM, sure, but anyone in a male-dominated science will sneer at the idea of it being ‘for real,’ nevermind that everyone sure took it more seriously when it was a male dominated field."

Personal anecdote time!  I’m in a biology graduate program.  An acquaintance wanted to introduce some guy to me because his son was thinking about becoming an undergrad science major.  When he found out I was in the biology department, he grinned and said, “Well, I guess that’s kind of related to science.”

I gave him what I hope was an icy look and said, “Isn’t it strange how men outside the field started saying that right around the time biology majors shifted from mostly male to mostly female?”

The guy got this look on his face like he was about to play the “just a joke” card, and then an older woman who had been standing nearby, talking to someone else, turned to me and said, “The same thing happened with real estate.”  She went on to explain that, over the course of the career, the male-to-female ratio among real estate agents had dropped, and the pay and “prestige factor” of that job dropped along with it.

It’s also interesting to look at fields where the reverse pattern happens, such as computer programming. Computer programming used to be a female-dominated field, but, in order to raise the prestige of the field, new entry tests and hiring practices were instituted to discourage the hiring of women. Because, naturally, there’s no way a field can be dominated by women and prestigious at the same time (reference: Researcher reveals how “Computer Geeks” replaced “Computer Girls”).

I’ve argued this exact thing before! Biology was NEVER considered a soft science before women entered. And medicine is now losing prestige too because women are becoming doctors instead of staying in lower positions. Suddenly these mentally rigorous fields based on insight and analysis are “just memorization” or some other bullshit about how they’re not REALLY using “intelligence.” 

And women are never given credit for succeeding in male dominated fields.  The fact the women now outperform men in biology is not taken as evidence that “women were just as capable as men all along” but instead men give us the excuse that “of course women do well in biology.  They just want to help people because they’re naturally inclined to nurture”

The men who say “women like biology because they nurture everything that moves!” doesn’t know what a lot of biology is. Molecular and cellular biology and genetics, though does have some applications in health, involves looking at tiny molecules with little interactions with any thing living, except their molecules/ cells, and you can hardly nurture those. Biologists studying fungi, plants, protist, viruses and single celled animals are hardly dealing with cuddly creatures as well. But there is a more important question, why is nurturing such a bad think, especially as it is a key trait to have if you are an ecologist, which (I hope) is the field that will save the planet from environmental destruction. So why they think that engineering is a “better” science than ecology, just because it involves more maths and is more “”“masculine”“”? As ecology is the field that has the potential to stop a global environmental collapse, and if a nurturing personality (like Jane Goodall etc) makes you a better ecologist, then so be it. 

geekygothgirl:

grizzlykurtz:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

History Lesson: In America from about 1700-1920 there was a social rule that said that women did not have a sex drive. According to men, all women ever were asexual and only ever had sex because their husbands wanted it and as a good doting wife they would open up for him. That said, lesbians flourished in this time! Because it was believed that women did not have sex, when two women would share a house and finances together (called a Boston Marriage, look it up!) nobody thought anything of it. Because clearly they werent homosexuals since clearly women were incapable of being independently sexual. The more you know!

Always reblog vintage lesbians and bi women. Always.

(Source: babycocodill)

s-k-apegoat:

My city is in chaos.
This is what’s happening to Hong Kong right this minute.


image

image

It is difficult for me to put into words, but simply put, University students started a class boycott movement demanding democracy and universal suffrage from the Hong Kong and Chinese Government this week, and the movement has escalated into citizens occupying Government Square and now, a main road leading into Hong Kong’s central hub.

Most protesters are younger generation Hong Kongers, including university students and even secondary school students. The leader of the student movement himself is barely even old enough to drive a car. 
The movement began peacefully with citizens merely sitting quietly and occupying a public space in a silent protest on Friday night. 

Then at 7:00 in the morning the next day, policemen stormed into the public square and began clearing out the area by force, dragging youngsters out violently, injuring many of them. Policemen have also been witnessed to beating youngsters without reason, and using high-concentration, anti-riot pepperspray on civilians who are merely attempting to protect themselves. No civilian put up any sort of fight or attempt at assaulting the police as far as i know,
(Police justified clearing out the area with the reason that protesters are holding illegal meetings in a public space.)

image
(Protesting civilians who remained on the streets overnight are wearing plastic wraps and raincoats under 30 degree weather in an attempt to protect themselves should the police utilize peppersprays again.)

The movement escalated again tonight when the protesters (now 4 times the size of the student movement the previous week) occupied a main road leading to the central hub of Hong Kong.
image

The police barricaded the roads and attempted to stop more people from joining the crowd this whole afternoon, but the peaceful crowd remained persistent and would not leave the area even after the police issued verbal warnings. (I emphasize “peaceful”, because protesters continued to be orderly and did not display any forms of aggression. They even cleared out a path for cars to pass the area, something the police didn’t even bother to do.)

At around 6:00, the police began using peppersprays on civilians again, this time high-powered ones that came in tanks instead of in bottles. Our people continued to shield themselves with umbrellas, but the umbrellas were also soon snatched away by the police. Live feed videos have also confirmed that police have been misusing peppersprays by firing them at close proximity, and also not giving any sort of verbal warnings before firing.

Video of a policeman firing at an elderly man at point-blank range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0r4jKkcDA7E

image

Yet again, protesters remained, and at 7:00, armed forces were sent into the crowd. They began firing tear gas capsules INTO the crowds and even INTO First-aid stations. The rounds came every few minutes and i counted at least 5 capsules being fired in a 10-minute period according to the live feeds. 
image

image

at least 30,000 people continue to stand their ground right this second, more armed policemen are being sent in, and news is that these police are ordered to use guns (loaded with plastic bullets) on civilians if protesters continue to remain. 

image

image

I fear for the people because policemen are not what they used to be anymore. These “police” who should be protecting us are now private armies for the government. I am watching my city die. It’s a terrifying feeling. If the police feel they are justified to use force on innocent civilians, tonight could end up in another massacre just like that of the Tian An Men June Fourth Massacre in 1989. 


And at this point I am too emotional to say anything else except that we need your prayers and your support. Please spread this out, people all over the world need to see what is happening right now. 

LIVE FEED OF THE CURRENT SITUATION:
http://sonoapp.net/stream/u/MeeJTV