frezned: digitalcable: vegasmatic: I don’t agree with this. The following are often mispronounced: asparagus quinoa acai tempeh seitan  various other fruits and veggies (that might be new to a person’s life). i’m having couch for dinner!  this Thai place in the city serves this dish called Khao Kra Paow Kai Dow and it’s goddamn amazing and if you follow the above mentality then honestly you deserve to miss out on the vast majority of good food so angry at this ridiculous statement not to mention the fact that many people can easily pronounce harmful chemicals.
View Separately

frezned:

digitalcable:

vegasmatic:

I don’t agree with this.

The following are often mispronounced:

  • asparagus
  • quinoa
  • acai
  • tempeh
  • seitan 
  • various other fruits and veggies (that might be new to a person’s life).

i’m having couch for dinner! 

this Thai place in the city serves this dish called Khao Kra Paow Kai Dow and it’s goddamn amazing and if you follow the above mentality then honestly you deserve to miss out on the vast majority of good food

so angry at this ridiculous statement

not to mention the fact that many people can easily pronounce harmful chemicals.

Source: weheartit.com

in-a-celestial-playroom: drugdoer: Ah see but we can’t escape economics. The coercion of porn and like… Its existence… Is harmful to women which is why I’m saying it should be effectively banned and women who are involved should be rehabilitated. It’s inherently abusive and horrible and I get the autonomy argument and I don’t really know how to respond to that because it just seems like one of those liberal sex-posi lines to me? It seems silly but I’m not a woman so if I could get more perspective from the woman who sent me an ask and reblogged an earlier post I’d love to hear more clarification of that? Yeah sure um basically my perspective is that, to keep with the theme of porn, your argument is slightly like a spare prick at an orgy. Yes, porn is nasty. Yes, it’s coercive, as is all labour. Yes, it’s harmful. You know what else is harmful? Ignoring opportunities to end suffering immediately and instead writing about how after the revolution there will be no porn. Like, good idea and all, but tell me, how does that help abused sex workers? Let’s face it: under capitalism, it’s impossible to ban porn. It’s kind of impossible to eradicate anything under capitalism. Trying to ban anything under capitalism, especially anything which makes money, like drugs or porn, pushes it underground, where the people running the show really aren’t the most ethical. When something is criminalised, it becomes laissez-faire because when an activity is illegal regardless of how it’s run, it might as well be run as efficiently and brutally as is possible because that’s just good economics. It’s impossible to fight porn and the abuse and suffering that is involved in the industry right now by banning it. The idea is just as laughable as telling me that a ban on cocaine will end the cartel wars. SO that’s point one - right now, it’s impossible to ban porn and talking about an effective ban or how we won’t have porn after the revolution is just posturing and it doesn’t help anybody. Second point: this posturing actually hurts women. Women are oppressed. It’s harder for women to get by. Some of these women voluntarily (to the extent that anything is voluntary under capitalism) go into porn to make a crust. So when a man says let’s ban porn, he’s proposing the eradication of a survival mechanism for women under capitalism, which is hugely oppressive, because his ban will either leave them utterly high and dry if it works or it will leave them to the mercies of unbridled kyriarchy in the form of organised crime if it doesn’t (the latter is more likely). Assuming the latter, there wil be a rise in abuses under the porn industry. More addiction, more trafficking, more coercion, more reape and more abuse. Trying to deny that is idiotic. So yeah. Your arguments about porn are all valid and well and good, but if you actually wanted to see a reduction in the exploitation and abuse of women by the porn industry in the world that we currently live in, they’re kinda useless.
Pop-upView Separately

in-a-celestial-playroom:

drugdoer:

Ah see but we can’t escape economics. The coercion of porn and like…
Its existence…
Is harmful to women which is why I’m saying it should be effectively banned and women who are involved should be rehabilitated. It’s inherently abusive and horrible and I get the autonomy argument and I don’t really know how to respond to that because it just seems like one of those liberal sex-posi lines to me? It seems silly but I’m not a woman so if I could get more perspective from the woman who sent me an ask and reblogged an earlier post I’d love to hear more clarification of that?

Yeah sure um basically my perspective is that, to keep with the theme of porn, your argument is slightly like a spare prick at an orgy.

Yes, porn is nasty. Yes, it’s coercive, as is all labour. Yes, it’s harmful.

You know what else is harmful? Ignoring opportunities to end suffering immediately and instead writing about how after the revolution there will be no porn.

Like, good idea and all, but tell me, how does that help abused sex workers?

Let’s face it: under capitalism, it’s impossible to ban porn. It’s kind of impossible to eradicate anything under capitalism. Trying to ban anything under capitalism, especially anything which makes money, like drugs or porn, pushes it underground, where the people running the show really aren’t the most ethical.

When something is criminalised, it becomes laissez-faire because when an activity is illegal regardless of how it’s run, it might as well be run as efficiently and brutally as is possible because that’s just good economics.

It’s impossible to fight porn and the abuse and suffering that is involved in the industry right now by banning it. The idea is just as laughable as telling me that a ban on cocaine will end the cartel wars.

SO that’s point one - right now, it’s impossible to ban porn and talking about an effective ban or how we won’t have porn after the revolution is just posturing and it doesn’t help anybody.

Second point: this posturing actually hurts women.

Women are oppressed. It’s harder for women to get by. Some of these women voluntarily (to the extent that anything is voluntary under capitalism) go into porn to make a crust. So when a man says let’s ban porn, he’s proposing the eradication of a survival mechanism for women under capitalism, which is hugely oppressive, because his ban will either leave them utterly high and dry if it works or it will leave them to the mercies of unbridled kyriarchy in the form of organised crime if it doesn’t (the latter is more likely).

Assuming the latter, there wil be a rise in abuses under the porn industry. More addiction, more trafficking, more coercion, more reape and more abuse. Trying to deny that is idiotic.

So yeah. Your arguments about porn are all valid and well and good, but if you actually wanted to see a reduction in the exploitation and abuse of women by the porn industry in the world that we currently live in, they’re kinda useless.

Source: drugdoer

When men feel inconsequential, it’s easier to blame women than it is to confront patriarchy-the true source of the diminishment and lack of meaning in so many men’s lives. When men feel unloved and disconnected, it’s easier to accuse women of not loving them well enough than it is to consider men’s own alienation from life. It’s easier to think of women as keeping men from the essence of their own lives than it is to see how men’s participation in patriarchy can suffocate and kill the life within themselves. It’s easier to theorize about powerful, devouring mothers than to confront the reality of patriarchy.

Beneath the massive denial of men’s power and responsibility and its projection onto women is an enormous pool of rage, resentment, and fear. Rather than look at patriarchy and their place within it, many men will beat, rape, torture, murder, and oppress women, children, and one another. They will wage mindless war and offer themselves up for the slaughter, chain themselves to jobs and work themselves to numbed exhaustion as if their lives had no value or meaning beyond controlling or being controlled or defending against control, and content themselves with half-lives of confused, lost deprivation. What men lack, women didn’t take from them, and it isn’t up to women to give it back.

Allan G. Johnson (via wretchedoftheearth)

What men lack, women didn’t take from them, and it isn’t up to women to give it back.

What men lack, women didn’t take from them, and it isn’t up to women to give it back.

What men lack, women didn’t take from them, and it isn’t up to women to give it back.

(via wretchedoftheearth)

A lot of times men get angry at me when I don’t address the problems men face. [….] For some reason, men want women to fix their lives too. (sexist tropes make women into plot points, catalysts for male character development, homemakers, and manic pixie dream girl muses. We’re expected to change their lives for the better. It’s written into the definition of womanhood.)

There are genuine problems that men face, problems also created by patriarchy: Not being allowed to show any emotion other than rage. Being held to strict standards of masculinity that require them to disrespect women and one-up each other to maintain a sense of identity. The required neurotic aversion to anything even remotely feminine that forbids any kind of empathetic connection to other human beings. Getting attacked for showing any kind of vulnerability.

These are problems that men have approached me with and demanded I address them, as if I as a feminist have any influence over how men define their manhood. Instead of complaining that feminists should fix all the problems that men create and perpetuate, men need to organize themselves to change these things. And while you’re at it, tell the MRA’s to give it a rest. They’re just making it worse for you.

(via amydentata)

(via hatewizard)

Source: wretchedoftheearth

Rand Paul’s 12-hour filibuster is unlikely to go down as much more than a footnote in the sordid history of the decline-and-fall years of our busted democracy, but it reveals quite a lot about the false promise of The Republic as a bulwark against an empire. There is but one position on which all sides (read: both sides) agree: that the opposition shalt not interfere with the warmaking powers of their side when it’s in power. All the gaudy Democratic moralizing of the Bush years evaporates like a Helmand wedding party under Obama’s wrathful eye. A rough survey of twitter, the blogs, and the mainstream press found most American liberals hurling vengeful non sequiturs at the filibuster or else making fun of Paul for the hilarious fact that he had to hold his bladder for hours in order to make the point that the President has now arrogated to himself not only the right to kill anyone else in the world with no process or trial, but also to kill his own citizens. In purely moral terms that may be a meaningless procedural distinction, but we live in a world of nations, and in that sense it really does represent a leap even further beyond the pale.
Jacob Bacharach. Read the whole thing. (via wwnorton)

(via wwnorton)