We take up the task eternal

Nineteen in New Orleans. Sculpture major and future homesteader. Lover of boxing, grappling, bears, music, art, literature, philosophy and nature.
Sunday, September 7
Permalink

(Source: baddroid)


2,626 notes
reblogged via tsunamiwavesurfing
Permalink

5,895 notes
reblogged via trianglejake-deactivated2014091
Permalink

(Source: alexbutera)


793 notes
reblogged via avantguardarts
Saturday, September 6
Permalink
crybabynerd:

descourageux:

crybabynerd:

evilrevan:

equalityformermaids:

yosssarian:

roserosetyler:

vixyish:

the-uncensored-she:

Tell me again why a women’s liberation movement is no longer needed.

Dear “I don’t need feminism” crowd…

“The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair. Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender." [x]

i hope all old white men burn in hell

Are you fucking kidding me.

….. Ok so if this were in reverse, I wonder how the guys would feel about women firing them for looking *too attractive* or in some cases- ugly. They would bitch and moan.

Well, technically it seems like women could do that with the way the actual article is phrased, but men are more often in positions of power where they’re capable of firing people. At any rate, it’s ridiculous that you can fire someone for such an arbitrary reason to begin with. 

If you operate a private-sector business, you should be able to fire anyone for any reason whatsoever. If I don’t allow women inside of my house, I’m a sexist asshole, but I have the right to do what I want with my property. The business is the business-owner’s property. Your position is the business-owner’s property. He has a right to do it, whether he’s right to do it or not.

I  can’t agree with that. If we were clean-slate resetting with everyone at the starting line with the same opportunities, that might be fine.  But as it is white men have had decades to get ahead of everyone else in this country. For years they were the only ones capable of owning property, and later, sons were still the first in line as inheritors. They control so much in our country and you know that. Allowing business owners the power to make decisions like that based on arbitrary reasons is fucked up and makes way for sexism, racism, etc etc ad infinitum and on a large scale. That stuff is so entrenched in our society that the people who aren’t experiencing it, for the most part, don’t really care. That’s not fair.  There’s stuff wrong with the way things are run and I dont trust individual business owners to correct it.
And don’t come at me with any nonsense about boycotting businesses you disagree with because boycotting is a luxury reserved for people who can afford to do that.

You’re absolutely right - the disenfranchised and oppressed have the most to lose in this scenario. But neither the sins of one’s ancestors nor his own prejudices give anyone the right to do as they please with another’s property. If I have a hundred dollars and I give it to a white man instead of a black man solely because I’m a racist asshole, that doesn’t give you the right to hold me at gunpoint until I give the black man the Benjamin. All legislation, benevolent or malevolent in intent, is backed by the threat of violence. It is completely unacceptable to levy force against an individual for how poorly he manages his or her own property. 
Government officials are no more trustworthy than sleazy business-owners, and they’re much less responsive to their constituents than someone who lives and works in the community, i.e., the business-owner. If you can gather enough support to get a law passed, you can gather enough support to change a business’ policies.

crybabynerd:

descourageux:

crybabynerd:

evilrevan:

equalityformermaids:

yosssarian:

roserosetyler:

vixyish:

the-uncensored-she:

Tell me again why a women’s liberation movement is no longer needed.

Dear “I don’t need feminism” crowd…

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair. Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender." [x]

i hope all old white men burn in hell

Are you fucking kidding me.

….. Ok so if this were in reverse, I wonder how the guys would feel about women firing them for looking *too attractive* or in some cases- ugly. They would bitch and moan.

Well, technically it seems like women could do that with the way the actual article is phrased, but men are more often in positions of power where they’re capable of firing people. At any rate, it’s ridiculous that you can fire someone for such an arbitrary reason to begin with. 

If you operate a private-sector business, you should be able to fire anyone for any reason whatsoever. If I don’t allow women inside of my house, I’m a sexist asshole, but I have the right to do what I want with my property. The business is the business-owner’s property. Your position is the business-owner’s property. He has a right to do it, whether he’s right to do it or not.

I  can’t agree with that. If we were clean-slate resetting with everyone at the starting line with the same opportunities, that might be fine.  But as it is white men have had decades to get ahead of everyone else in this country. For years they were the only ones capable of owning property, and later, sons were still the first in line as inheritors. They control so much in our country and you know that. Allowing business owners the power to make decisions like that based on arbitrary reasons is fucked up and makes way for sexism, racism, etc etc ad infinitum and on a large scale. That stuff is so entrenched in our society that the people who aren’t experiencing it, for the most part, don’t really care. That’s not fair.  There’s stuff wrong with the way things are run and I dont trust individual business owners to correct it.

And don’t come at me with any nonsense about boycotting businesses you disagree with because boycotting is a luxury reserved for people who can afford to do that.

You’re absolutely right - the disenfranchised and oppressed have the most to lose in this scenario. But neither the sins of one’s ancestors nor his own prejudices give anyone the right to do as they please with another’s property. If I have a hundred dollars and I give it to a white man instead of a black man solely because I’m a racist asshole, that doesn’t give you the right to hold me at gunpoint until I give the black man the Benjamin. All legislation, benevolent or malevolent in intent, is backed by the threat of violence. It is completely unacceptable to levy force against an individual for how poorly he manages his or her own property. 

Government officials are no more trustworthy than sleazy business-owners, and they’re much less responsive to their constituents than someone who lives and works in the community, i.e., the business-owner. If you can gather enough support to get a law passed, you can gather enough support to change a business’ policies.

(Source: yoursocialconstructsareshowing)


119,030 notes
reblogged via crybabynerd
Friday, September 5
Permalink

davidesky2:

Expansion, by Paige Bradley, via Distractify.


233 notes
reblogged via trianglejake-deactivated2014091
Permalink

(Source: theronindiaries)


205 notes
reblogged via trianglejake-deactivated2014091
Permalink
njrvmdcapa:

Or for painting their house a color that’s not up to code. Or building a structure on their property without a million permits

njrvmdcapa:

Or for painting their house a color that’s not up to code. Or building a structure on their property without a million permits

(Source: questionall)


599 notes
reblogged via trianglejake-deactivated2014091
Thursday, September 4
Permalink
crybabynerd:

evilrevan:

equalityformermaids:

yosssarian:

roserosetyler:

vixyish:

the-uncensored-she:

Tell me again why a women’s liberation movement is no longer needed.

Dear “I don’t need feminism” crowd…

“The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair. Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender." [x]

i hope all old white men burn in hell

Are you fucking kidding me.

….. Ok so if this were in reverse, I wonder how the guys would feel about women firing them for looking *too attractive* or in some cases- ugly. They would bitch and moan.

Well, technically it seems like women could do that with the way the actual article is phrased, but men are more often in positions of power where they’re capable of firing people. At any rate, it’s ridiculous that you can fire someone for such an arbitrary reason to begin with. 

If you operate a private-sector business, you should be able to fire anyone for any reason whatsoever. If I don’t allow women inside of my house, I’m a sexist asshole, but I have the right to do what I want with my property. The business is the business-owner’s property. Your position is the business-owner’s property. He has a right to do it, whether he’s right to do it or not.

crybabynerd:

evilrevan:

equalityformermaids:

yosssarian:

roserosetyler:

vixyish:

the-uncensored-she:

Tell me again why a women’s liberation movement is no longer needed.

Dear “I don’t need feminism” crowd…

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair. Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender." [x]

i hope all old white men burn in hell

Are you fucking kidding me.

….. Ok so if this were in reverse, I wonder how the guys would feel about women firing them for looking *too attractive* or in some cases- ugly. They would bitch and moan.

Well, technically it seems like women could do that with the way the actual article is phrased, but men are more often in positions of power where they’re capable of firing people. At any rate, it’s ridiculous that you can fire someone for such an arbitrary reason to begin with. 

If you operate a private-sector business, you should be able to fire anyone for any reason whatsoever. If I don’t allow women inside of my house, I’m a sexist asshole, but I have the right to do what I want with my property. The business is the business-owner’s property. Your position is the business-owner’s property. He has a right to do it, whether he’s right to do it or not.

(Source: yoursocialconstructsareshowing)


119,030 notes
reblogged via crybabynerd
Wednesday, September 3
Permalink
121 notes
reblogged via fuck-yeah-bears
Monday, September 1
Permalink

(Source: weheartit.com)


21,360 notes
reblogged via plasticstomach