coelasquid:

underunderstood:

nowyoukno:

Now You Know (Source)

This is an important event in history, especially Canadian and feminist history. So I’m going to tell you more about it.
1) The shooter had been rejected from Ecole Polytechnique prior to the shooting. He blamed this on these female students, claiming that they were feminists who ruined his life.
2) In the first classroom he entered, he demanded the men leave before shooting at the women. No man attempted to stop him as they left. Take that as you will. (Later on, several men did get injured trying to stop him in the hallways.)
3) In his suicide letter, he believed that feminists were attempting to be more powerful than men, and were trying to take men’s rights away.4) Feminists were actually blamed by some for the massacre. The line of logic was “if feminists didn’t make women’s rights an issue, Levine wouldn’t have wanted to kill feminists!” Victim blaming at its finest.
5) The mainstream news media often did not publicize the outrage from women’s groups, and often preferred those who took a calm approach. Ironic, that.
6) Despite him literally having a hit list of feminist icons in his final letter, several newscasters questioned whether or not the shooting was a sexist act, some even denying the idea outright.
8) Many memorials for the victims have been created, and rightly so; however, some prominent ones were erected in poor neighbourhoods where many Native women were killed every day in the same time period as the shooting (see: Marker of Change, Vancouver) (see: Missing Women, Vancouver). Basically, white feminism happened. 
The entire event was nothing short of a tragedy, and I recommend that everyone read up on it and the resulting aftermath. It’s… interesting to see how the media tried to turn it into a random act of psychopathy instead of what it was (we know better now, luckily). The reactions (memorials, etc) to the deaths of these 14 White, middle class women as compared to the deaths of 60+ Native, lower class women are also “interesting” to compare. (By interesting, I mean infuriating.)

It’s also an important event because after it happened Canada was like “oh shit better expedite that whole gun control thing” and then did. I feel like this situation is so completely ignored when Americans talk about gun control, like the examples the American left always trot out are like “look at how well gun control works in Europe” and opponents say “well gun culture is completely different here you can’t just take them all away all of the sudden and expect that to work”. But Canada has a lot of guns AND regulates ownership to successfully cut down on gun crime, violence, and accidents. It was a pretty clear line of “this is a problem that requires legislation” and the necessary change was made. People grumbled a lot, but the shift happened.

coelasquid:

underunderstood:

nowyoukno:

Now You Know (Source)

This is an important event in history, especially Canadian and feminist history. So I’m going to tell you more about it.

1) The shooter had been rejected from Ecole Polytechnique prior to the shooting. He blamed this on these female students, claiming that they were feminists who ruined his life.

2) In the first classroom he entered, he demanded the men leave before shooting at the women. No man attempted to stop him as they left. Take that as you will. (Later on, several men did get injured trying to stop him in the hallways.)

3) In his suicide letter, he believed that feminists were attempting to be more powerful than men, and were trying to take men’s rights away.
4) Feminists were actually blamed by some for the massacre. The line of logic was “if feminists didn’t make women’s rights an issue, Levine wouldn’t have wanted to kill feminists!” Victim blaming at its finest.

5) The mainstream news media often did not publicize the outrage from women’s groups, and often preferred those who took a calm approach. Ironic, that.

6) Despite him literally having a hit list of feminist icons in his final letter, several newscasters questioned whether or not the shooting was a sexist act, some even denying the idea outright.

8) Many memorials for the victims have been created, and rightly so; however, some prominent ones were erected in poor neighbourhoods where many Native women were killed every day in the same time period as the shooting (see: Marker of Change, Vancouver) (see: Missing Women, Vancouver). Basically, white feminism happened. 

The entire event was nothing short of a tragedy, and I recommend that everyone read up on it and the resulting aftermath. It’s… interesting to see how the media tried to turn it into a random act of psychopathy instead of what it was (we know better now, luckily). The reactions (memorials, etc) to the deaths of these 14 White, middle class women as compared to the deaths of 60+ Native, lower class women are also “interesting” to compare. (By interesting, I mean infuriating.)

It’s also an important event because after it happened Canada was like “oh shit better expedite that whole gun control thing” and then did. I feel like this situation is so completely ignored when Americans talk about gun control, like the examples the American left always trot out are like “look at how well gun control works in Europe” and opponents say “well gun culture is completely different here you can’t just take them all away all of the sudden and expect that to work”. But Canada has a lot of guns AND regulates ownership to successfully cut down on gun crime, violence, and accidents. It was a pretty clear line of “this is a problem that requires legislation” and the necessary change was made. People grumbled a lot, but the shift happened.

pythosart:

It’s about time I did some Nimona fanart! It’s pretty much everything I love, all wrapped up in one excellent comic

pythosart:

It’s about time I did some Nimona fanart! It’s pretty much everything I love, all wrapped up in one excellent comic

tooyoungforthelivingdead:

super-highschool-level-homestuck:

iprayforangels:

plushestrumpest:

30secondstocalifornia:

wingscanspeak:

zorobro:

wingscannotspeak:

peetasboxers:

kissyourneck-slitmythroat:

I showed this post to my boyfriend and he tried to take his shirt off like a girl and 

uh

yeah

Out of the 82k notes my post got this is by far the best comment holy shit thank u for being u

So i tried it both ways and uh

i mean how do you do the first one without pulling out all your hair?

this made me laugh really hard….

and it made me realize that girls and boys pull their shirt off differently. /amazed

but seriously I think girls just do the cross arm thing because of HAIR like demonstrated 

So one year, one URL change, and a hair cut later, I decide to try again… FOR SCIENCE! 

Its not science unless you write it down so 

First method:

image
Well done, i guess…

Second:

image
I fucked up

Girls… how?

I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN HAVE SUCH DIFFERENT WAYS OF TAKING OFF SHIRTS AND SO MUCH DIFFICULTY DOING IT THE OTHER WAY

I FIGURED IT OUT!!!!!

It’s all in the way that girl/boys shirts are made.

Girls shirts have less armpit room then boy’s do and are generally shorter so pulling it off over your head is more practical because by lifting your arms all the way up you make enough room for the sleeves to just slip off.

Boys shirts have more room and are generally longer so it is easy to slip them off over your head.

but if you take a girls shirt off like a boys shirt you will get your arms caught because there isn’t much armpit space.

and if you take a boys shirt off like a girls shit you will still have your head in it when you’ve lifted your arms all the way up because of the shirt’s length.

It has nothing to do with us. It is entirely to do with how our shirts are made. I figured it out for you. YOU’RE WELCOME!

bless you

BEST POST ON TUMBLR

wolfanthony:

West coast best coast

wolfanthony:

West coast best coast

theawkwardkelly:

Stacy Peralta.

theawkwardkelly:

Stacy Peralta.

terrenonussbukorrek:

vintagecatsandpeople:

Skibotn, 1967

Ismo Hölttö

terrenonussbukorrek:

vintagecatsandpeople:

Skibotn, 1967

Ismo Hölttö

thunderpopcola:

This is how you lose her. 
You lose her when you forget to remember the little things that mean the world to her: the sincerity in a stranger’s voice during a trip to the grocery, the delight of finding something lost or forgotten like a sticker from when she was five, the selflessness of a child giving a part of his meal to another, the scent of new books in the store, the surprise short but honest notes she tucks in her journal and others you could only see if you look closely. 
You must remember when she forgets. 
You lose her when you don’t notice that she notices everything about you: your use of the proper punctuation that tells her continuation rather than finality, your silence when you’re about to ask a question but you think anything you’re about to say to her would be silly, your mindless humming when it is too quiet, your handwriting when you sign your name in blank sheets of paper, your muted laughter when you are trying to be polite, and more and more of what you are, which you don’t even know about yourself, because she pays attention. 
She remembers when you forget. 
You lose her for every second you make her feel less and less of the  beauty that she is. When you make her feel that she is replaceable. She wants to feel cherished. When you make her feel that you are fleeting. She wants you to stay. When you make her feel inadequate. She wants to know that she is enough and she does not need to change for you, nor for anyone else because she is she and she is beautiful, kind and good.
You must learn her. 
You must know the reason why she is silent. You must trace her weakest spots. You must write to her. You must remind her that you are there. You must know how long it takes for her to give up. You must be there to hold her when she is about to. 
You must love her because many have tried and failed. And she wants to know that she is worthy to be loved, that she is worthy to be kept.
And, this is how you keep her.

thunderpopcola:

This is how you lose her. 

You lose her when you forget to remember the little things that mean the world to her: the sincerity in a stranger’s voice during a trip to the grocery, the delight of finding something lost or forgotten like a sticker from when she was five, the selflessness of a child giving a part of his meal to another, the scent of new books in the store, the surprise short but honest notes she tucks in her journal and others you could only see if you look closely.

You must remember when she forgets. 

You lose her when you don’t notice that she notices everything about you: your use of the proper punctuation that tells her continuation rather than finality, your silence when you’re about to ask a question but you think anything you’re about to say to her would be silly, your mindless humming when it is too quiet, your handwriting when you sign your name in blank sheets of paper, your muted laughter when you are trying to be polite, and more and more of what you are, which you don’t even know about yourself, because she pays attention.

She remembers when you forget. 

You lose her for every second you make her feel less and less of the  beauty that she is. When you make her feel that she is replaceable. She wants to feel cherished. When you make her feel that you are fleeting. She wants you to stay. When you make her feel inadequate. She wants to know that she is enough and she does not need to change for you, nor for anyone else because she is she and she is beautiful, kind and good.

You must learn her. 

You must know the reason why she is silent. You must trace her weakest spots. You must write to her. You must remind her that you are there. You must know how long it takes for her to give up. You must be there to hold her when she is about to. 

You must love her because many have tried and failed. And she wants to know that she is worthy to be loved, that she is worthy to be kept.

And, this is how you keep her.

wilwheaton:

phoolcat:

muchanimal-veryfeminism-wow:

misandry-mermaid:

mensrightsactivism:

This was actually said by a prominent member of the Men’s rights community on Reddit who then proceeded to get 24(!) upvotes:

Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn’t assault her, didn’t touch her… all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.
How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?
This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men’s freedom.

Now that’s what I call a real men’s rights issue. Could you expect anything less from a hate group?
Screencap (and more info) over at the always excellent Man Boobz.

Mens Rights Activism: hard at work defending sexual harassment.

men’s rights: where a man’s right to sexually harass a woman based on whether they’ve decided she meets some standard of “modesty” she has no say in, should supersede a woman’s right to basic personal boundaries and human decency.
men’s rights: when a woman freely making the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body, not affecting anyone else in any way, needs to “accept the consequences of her actions”- but men who choose to harass women shouldn’t have to face any consequences for THAT choice, even though it hurts someone else.
men’s rights: a “movement” (purposeless online misogynistic circlejerk) where rights are defined as behaviors that you feel entitled to carry out without being even mildly criticized for it, no matter how many other people are negatively impacted by that behavior.
men’s rights: where being asked to show basic human decency towards women is “infringing” upon a man’s freedom not to do that, even though that is how a society is supposed to fucking function. because fuck them, you shouldn’t have to consider other human beings when you make your choices. how dare they?
men’s rights: you got yours (basic human rights). so fuck everybody else. now, let’s talk about how poor people don’t deserve to earn a living wage, because then the services you use every day might cost you an extra $20 per year.

men’s rights: a movement dedicated to preserving and forwarding the rights of men to continue the subjugation and abuse of women.

I’m so embarrassed to share a gender with these pieces of shit.

wilwheaton:

phoolcat:

muchanimal-veryfeminism-wow:

misandry-mermaid:

mensrightsactivism:

This was actually said by a prominent member of the Men’s rights community on Reddit who then proceeded to get 24(!) upvotes:

Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn’t assault her, didn’t touch her… all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.

How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?

This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men’s freedom.

Now that’s what I call a real men’s rights issue. Could you expect anything less from a hate group?

Screencap (and more info) over at the always excellent Man Boobz.

Mens Rights Activism: hard at work defending sexual harassment.

men’s rights: where a man’s right to sexually harass a woman based on whether they’ve decided she meets some standard of “modesty” she has no say in, should supersede a woman’s right to basic personal boundaries and human decency.

men’s rights: when a woman freely making the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body, not affecting anyone else in any way, needs to “accept the consequences of her actions”- but men who choose to harass women shouldn’t have to face any consequences for THAT choice, even though it hurts someone else.

men’s rights: a “movement” (purposeless online misogynistic circlejerk) where rights are defined as behaviors that you feel entitled to carry out without being even mildly criticized for it, no matter how many other people are negatively impacted by that behavior.

men’s rights: where being asked to show basic human decency towards women is “infringing” upon a man’s freedom not to do that, even though that is how a society is supposed to fucking function. because fuck them, you shouldn’t have to consider other human beings when you make your choices. how dare they?

men’s rights: you got yours (basic human rights). so fuck everybody else. now, let’s talk about how poor people don’t deserve to earn a living wage, because then the services you use every day might cost you an extra $20 per year.

men’s rights: a movement dedicated to preserving and forwarding the rights of men to continue the subjugation and abuse of women.

I’m so embarrassed to share a gender with these pieces of shit.

i-wish-i-had-gills:

So I was in Paris the other day and as the Parks & Rec dork that I am, I set on a mission to find the Ben & Leslie lock from the Paris episode (see top left photo). 
Following the reddit directions, I found the exact location, checked that all the other locks around it matched.. only to find the actual lock gone. Someone has clearly snipped off the metal fence to slide the lock off. I was super mad and super sad all at once.
Whoever you are, super hardcore Parks fan, you kinda suck.

i-wish-i-had-gills:

So I was in Paris the other day and as the Parks & Rec dork that I am, I set on a mission to find the Ben & Leslie lock from the Paris episode (see top left photo). 

Following the reddit directions, I found the exact location, checked that all the other locks around it matched.. only to find the actual lock gone. Someone has clearly snipped off the metal fence to slide the lock off. I was super mad and super sad all at once.

Whoever you are, super hardcore Parks fan, you kinda suck.

Ice Ice Baby

annakovsky:

typicrobots:

Of all the embarrassing things Adam Scott has made me feel, attracted to his character in Step Brothers while he does the Ice Ice Baby dance might be the most embarrassing.

4-panel-life:

every month

4-panel-life:

every month