So, I got to wake up to this today:


I don’t even know where to start with this… I first cut off my hair when I was 7. There really wasn’t a huge reason. I just sat down in the chair and told the lady I wanted my hair short. There was nothing “political” about it. The opinions expressed in this article seem extreme but they’re actually things I’ve come across before. The idea that women are always in competition with each other is accurate but it has nothing to do with “genetic programming” and everything to do with the way society grooms girls. Their worth is wrapped up in their ability to get a man and have a family. A huge part of “getting a man” is wrapped up in how a woman looks. This brings us to the idea that a woman’s femininity (worth) is connected to her hair and appearance.
This guy has the opinion that unfortunately lots of men have: how he feels about a woman is more important than how she feels about herself. Men have been told by society that everything a woman does is for them. How she dresses, how she wears make up, how she acts is all for a man’s benefit. (This is of course absolute bullshit.) “Long hair is universally attractive to men.” Right there he’s taking every decision a woman makes away from her. If a woman cuts her hair short she doesn’t want to be perceived as attractive. Here’s what it all really boils down to: this guy hates women. The women with short hair that he engaged a shared traits that scared the shit out of him, so now he’s using this article to discredit them and “regain” his masculinity. The women he mentions “making an exception for” all challenged his masculinity by either rejecting him or taking a more aggressive stance on their sexuality. So of course there must be something wrong with them. 
Just using the phrase “damaged” to describe these types of women is his way of regaining power.
My initial reaction was to be furious. But after thinking it over and thinking about my personal experiences, I’m just not surprised. The way this guy expresses his opinions is extreme but it’s nothing I haven’t encountered before. Even at the age of 7 there were people questioning my decision to cut off all my hair; telling me I looked prettier with longer hair. (I heard this from adults and my classmates.) It never stopped, either. All the way into high school I was hearing about how boys were intimidated by my short hair. I should just try growing my hair out, it would look so pretty. (I heard this just as much from the girls as I did the boys.) I had a boyfriend who constantly berated me for not being his idea of what a woman should be. It all comes back to how society treats girls.

I would love nothing more than to torch this asshole to the ground, but the sad thing is nothing I would say to him would make a difference. His hate for women goes too deep for anyone to fix, which unfortunately is true for most misogynists. All I can hope is that the people who can learn something from this will find it and will start being more aware of how this school of thought works on them. If we can be aware of the problem then we are one step closer to fixing the problem. 


I’m writing a dissertation about video games and I’d love it if you could take this survey as part of my research into some of the issues surrounding them.
The survey is in two parts so you may need to copy and paste the link at the end of the first bit, but they’re both mostly multiple choice so it won’t take too long.

If by any chance, you can’t get to the second link, here it is:

Thank you!

PS: If you can’t take the survey, I’d be really appreciative if you could re-blog this so that other people might :)

Ugh I just have to rant about family guy for five minutes, bear with me.
I used to like Family Guy. In it’s first, second and even third seasons.

But then something happened and I stopped finding the jokes funny.
I started actually thinking about what they implied, instead of just accepting the humour as ‘pushing the boundaries’.
I wondered exactly what boundaries it was pushing, and why that was seen to be funny?

Thinking about it, the humour IS outrageous. It’s outrageous that people think that this is cutting edge comedy.
Let me break it down for you: it isn’t.

For the most part of its humour, Family Guy takes already existing stereotypes and prejudices and blows them out of proportion. Wow so cutting edge. How unprecedented! Give them all the awards.
No shut up.

What they’ve done is take the easy road to a few awards. What would really been cutting edge and ‘pushing the boundaries’ would be to take those stereotypes and offensive viewpoints they’re currently perpetuating and completely turn them on their head. And then make people laugh at that.

The problem is, some of the topics being made fun of in FG are already the subject of ridicule in society: mental illness, feminism, disability, racism, transphobia, homophobia… The list goes on.
Enough people were already laughing about and belittling these topics, long before Seth MacFarlane made a cartoon including them. It isn’t a new viewpoint, it isn’t a mind-blowingly new way of thinking. All it does is comfort people in the fact that “oh it’s okay to laugh at these things and make offensive jokes because this award winning cartoon has got ALL THE AWARDS from having their entire script based off of this”
No matter how ironically FG may intend to portray these views, ironic portrayal is often lost on people; this has been seen many times. As a creator you cannot assume that your irony will be picked up by your audience.

All in all, I just think that Family Guy could have been so much more if the creator wasn’t so far up his own ass to realise that the only thing he is doing is reinforcing tired and dangerous stereotypes and ideals. 

When a man tells a joke and a woman doesn’t laugh, the man wonders what’s wrong with the woman rather than questioning whether his joke was actually funny or not.
Never is this more prevalent than with rape jokes.







What I find so terrifying about all the anti-abortion discussions going round is that people don’t understand that the debate isn’t really just about giving women abortions, it’s about giving women THE CHOICE to have an abortion.
A SAFE abortion in a clinical, sterilised environment with…

This is why we say that those people hate women. They know abortion will still happen, and women will die, and they do not care.

It’s a question of when you think that lifeand with this: human rights—begins.

If you don’t think unborn babies have a right to life you can understandably come to the conclusion that it is up to the single woman to decide what she does with her body, as the babies body then isn’t one in the legal sense.

If you start from the premise that an unborn baby (anytime or at a certain stage of its development) is an own kind of life, then you got to attribute the baby its own human rights. In the consequence of this view you can’t say that the right of a mother to abortion is above the human right to life of the baby. One can then, for example, call for a social system to provide mothers with assistance and financial aid to help them to be able to get the child and give her or him an appropriate environment, during the pregnancyand afterwards. But with this definition of the unborn child as a life for itself one cannot say that the right to choose includes the life of another human being.

That is how different perceptions of unborn babies and the beginning of life is decisive about whether one (philosophically-ethically) has to support the right to choose over abortion. Or one (also out of ethical principles) has to reject a right to abortion because of the human right of the unborn life.

The idea that a woman’s life is worth less than a fetus’s life is abhorrent. Pregnancy is a health risk. Corpses have more of a right to bodily autonomy than a living, pregnant woman. This constant assertion that a woman’s life is worth less than a fetus’s is dangerous.

Regarding a possible weighing up between woman’s life and the life of a fetus, I assume that most of the supporters of a fetus’s right to life don’t say that abortion should still be illegal when the life of the mother is in danger.

The currently central question ist that of the ‘right to choose’ versus the ‘right to life’. And it is very disputed as it is a high-level ethical question.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is forcing her to take many risks with her health. Mandating that she can have some bodily autonomy ONLY if she risks DEATH? That, to me, is still saying that a woman’s life is worth less than that of a fetus.

The debate of when life begins is all very well, but there is also the question of the quality of life for both mother and child. If the mother is not at physical risk from the pregnancy, but would be unable to give that child a good quality of life once it is born, or be maintain a good quality of life for themselves, then they need to have the option of terminating that pregnancy.
If the life of the embryo/foetus/baby are the only thing that are thought of, then I think people need to take a step back and think of the quality of life that child and its mother will have once it is born.
Regardless of that, there are many other reasons (apart from health and quality of life) people may not want to or have the ability to carry their pregnancy through to full term and they need a safe, clean option for them to carry out this decision.

The entire debate surrounding when life begins is varied according to different beliefs. And as we have seen, as soon as beliefs begin to seep into the laws of the country, it is often the women and POC who lose their rights first.
If someone personally believes that life begins at conception, then they are more than welcome to not get an abortion at all. Similarly, if somebody believes that life begins at the point the baby’s heart first beats, then they are welcome to only consider pregnancy up until that point.
But the option should NEVER be taken away from those who have different beliefs.
It should also never be the place of the government to determine why and when women should have access to the vital healthcare they require.

What I find so terrifying about all the anti-abortion discussions going round is that people don’t understand that the debate isn’t really just about giving women abortions, it’s about giving women THE CHOICE to have an abortion.
A SAFE abortion in a clinical, sterilised environment with experienced doctors and nurses.

Making it illegal will not stop abortions. It will just make them dangerous and potentially fatal to women who seek them.

And it’s truly terrifying to think that some people (such as some pro-life supporters) don’t get that. Or any of it.
It baffles me how women can be denied safe healthcare and the choice to deal with their bodies how they deem fit, and in place of that be restricted to laws that can (and will in some cases) strip them of their autonomy and rights.


These should come as part of a welcome pack to womanhood. I wish it wasn’t so, but until men stop thinking it’s okay to cat call…








Just a friendly reminder that while the “real beauty” campaign has the right idea, and that video that’s circulating seems awesome, that they don’t actually practice what they preach.

Not to mention there are still a lot of issues in regards to inclusion and what bodies aren’t even making it into the “real beauty” ads. 

Ok; carry on.

will do anything for some more numbers in their bank accounts, disgusting.

both campaigns essentially demonstrate that Dove views women’s bodies as a prop to sell soap.


Essentially what dove says in their campaigns are “You’re beautiful! Fix that frizzy hair and dark underarms ??? Try our product to make your beautiful self glow!!!! You’re beautiful!!!!!”

Which is kinda creepy as fuck.

I already knew the dove campaign was bullshit but I didn’t realize they were owned with axe :/