rightsided:

harmonyparkinglot:

rightsided:

harmonyparkinglot:

That green stuff doesn’t look too edible… But man, that potato looks delicious!
Maybe someday the capitalist pigs will realize that money isn’t a leafy green…

Money can be exchanged for many potatoes.

Money, that the government has taken from us, being given to us, by the people who took it in the first place, so we can give it back to the people stealing from us.
Money is the root of all evil.

I’ve been waiting to use this quote:

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’
“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange ofgoods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich–will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt–and of his life, as he deserves.
“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’
“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.
“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood–money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves–slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers–as industrialists.
“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money–and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being–the self-made man–the American industrialist.
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.
“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide– as, I think, he will.

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”

rightsided:

harmonyparkinglot:

rightsided:

harmonyparkinglot:

That green stuff doesn’t look too edible… But man, that potato looks delicious!

Maybe someday the capitalist pigs will realize that money isn’t a leafy green…

Money can be exchanged for many potatoes.

Money, that the government has taken from us, being given to us, by the people who took it in the first place, so we can give it back to the people stealing from us.

Money is the root of all evil.

I’ve been waiting to use this quote:

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’

“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange ofgoods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich–will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt–and of his life, as he deserves.

“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.

“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood–money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves–slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers–as industrialists.

“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money–and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being–the self-made man–the American industrialist.

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide– as, I think, he will.

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”

I’ve been neglecting this blog for a while, and I apologize. Tumblr glitched and for about two weeks I couldn’t post on this side blog. I’ve been reblogging and posting my political things on my main blog, and think I’ll stick to doing that. Thanks for following, but I don’t foresee much happening on this blog in the future.

dontneedfeminism:

ohmandolin:

I think it’s kind of telling that I’m more afraid of posting this picture and any relating anecdotes on Facebook than I am of posting about my sexuality.

1. This statistic comes from a fallacious study done by Mary Koss (a feminist), who admits that 73% of the women she identified as victims did not believe they had been raped or sexually assaulted in any way.
2. This is correct as far as I know.
3. It’s not a predatory drug if the person is choosing to drink without anyone else’s influence. It’s not being “drugged” if a person gets drunk of their own volition and then has sex with someone else.
4. “According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.”
“there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.” - Linda Farstein, head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit. 

dontneedfeminism:

ohmandolin:

I think it’s kind of telling that I’m more afraid of posting this picture and any relating anecdotes on Facebook than I am of posting about my sexuality.

1. This statistic comes from a fallacious study done by Mary Koss (a feminist), who admits that 73% of the women she identified as victims did not believe they had been raped or sexually assaulted in any way.

2. This is correct as far as I know.

3. It’s not a predatory drug if the person is choosing to drink without anyone else’s influence. It’s not being “drugged” if a person gets drunk of their own volition and then has sex with someone else.

4. “According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.”

“there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.” - Linda Farstein, head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit. 

(via thepoliticalhippie)

priceofliberty:

blackinasia:

Looking at these image from the original March on Washington in ‘63, as well as those just below from ‘83, what is simultaneously natural and striking is how the people have access to their national grounds. 

Looking at the photos from this weekend’s 2013 anniversary in contrast, the visual and physical shift in the civic and expressive relationship to democratic space is shocking to me. 

If the middle photo of this last grouping is a powerful representation of how much public assembly and public expression has been bounded, the last photo is even more concerning.  Yes, the citizens, their signs advocating for greater rights and expanded freedoms, are penned in. But I’m also thinking about the “I am a man” poster. As a key civil rights phrase originating from the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Strike and an enduring affirmation,  the word “still” in this context is to strengthen the original phrase and intent, highlighting the continuity of the ideal. In an ironic twist, however — and one that contradicts decades of struggle for advancement — the phrase can be seen to relate to the bounded condition. As in: I am still a man, although here on this Mall in 2013, I am this confined. 

Source: In the Reflecting Pool: The March on Washington and the Diminishing Space for Public Protest — BagNews

If this doesn’t terrify you, then you just don’t get it AT ALL.

Free speech zones.

(via thefreelioness)

BEING A WOMAN IS NOT A DISADVANTAGE
Feminists need to stop playing the victim card and acting like I need their help because of my gender.

marvinaparanoidandroid:

scienceing:

mybluedecember:

princess-munchkin:

How the fuck does Bill Nye expect this to happen? What do you want to do, force women to enroll in science courses, regardless of whether or not they want to do it? Just for the sake of having “enough” women? Why the fuck do these fractions matter so much? It’s not like people are holding guns to our head and threatening to kill us if we become interested in science.
Maybe, just maybe, a lot of us DON’T FUCKING WANT to be scientists. Is that a crime?

Hi there, princess-munchkin. Female engineering student here. 
Bill Nye is not saying that you HAVE to be a scientist, and you are right that no one is holding a gun to my head because I am interested in science, but let me tell you some of the struggles of being a woman in the STEM fields. 
1) Because I am a woman, I am not expected these fields. I first fully realized this when I was in high school, on my robotics team. See, although my robotics team was about 50% female, most of the women were part of the “business administration” side of things: finance, marketting, PR, membership, etc. Was this a problem? Absolutely not. But I was there to be an engineer, and specifically, to be the robot programmer. This was met with a lot of hesitation at first from some of the other students (all of whom happened to be male. This is not necessarily a bad thing.) You see, all of the robot programmers before me were guys. Computer programming is just a thing that guys do, or so they thought. Even after I had proved myself to the mentors on the team, many of the students still underestimated my abilities. There were rumors going around that I wouldn’t have been able to program the robot at all if the lead software mentor wasn’t there to help me. This was just flat-out false, but it wasn’t until I won an award for the team that the other students actually saw my merit. 
2) There is not a lot of encouragement for women to go into these fields. I first noticed this when I was in elementary school. I was always interested in math, science, you name it, but many of my teachers and family members pushed that to the side for a long time. When I asked for legos for christmas, I would get ballet slippers. In fact, for a long time, I was training to be a professional dancer. I loved to dance. I loved math more, but no one seemed to notice that about me. It wasn’t until I had a long conversation with one particular teacher in high school that I decided to look into engineering. I had never even considered it as an option before, because no one decided to encourage me to pursue my interest in science. If it hadn’t been for that teacher, I would probably not be at the school I am at right now. 
3) For a long time, Engineering/Science/Math WAS a “boys only” club. Let me tell you when some of the top technical schools and societies started letting women in:
RPI, The oldest tech school in the country, founded in 1824. Started admitting women in 1942 to “replace men called to war.” Campus housing for women wasn’t constructed until 1966. 
Tau Beta Pi, the Engineering Honors Society - Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1968.
Caltech - Currently rated #3 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1891. Started admitting women in 1970. 
Georgia Tech - Currently rated #5 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1952. 
Do you see the implications of this? Engineering has been a part of our society since around the late 1800s (in the case of RPI, since the 1820s), but women weren’t even allowed in for the most part until the 1950s, regardless of their merit. 
4) Because of the fact that it was a “boys only” club for such a long time, there are not a lot of women engineers and scientists to look up to. When you’re reading your physics, chemistry, and math text books, the majority of those theories were came up with by men. It is true that much of our history was written by White Men, but this does not mean that the fact that there are few women scientists to look up does not matter. 
So, as you can hopefully see, princess-munckin, or anyone else that shares the opinions of princess-munchkin, Bill Nye was not arguing that women that are not interested in STEM should go into those fields anyway. But he IS arguing against all of the systematic barriers set up against women who ARE interested in engineering and science. There are several women out there who are just as good as the boys at math and science, but will never pursue their interests because it just doesn’t seem like an option. That was me for a long time. I am super grateful for the fact that I fought against that, and that I ended up where I am. 
if you don’t like science, fine. Don’t be a scientist. But if one day you have a daughter and she shows interest in being a scientist, PLEASE encourage her. Because Bill Nye is right, there needs to be more women scientists in the world. 

A+ comment

Hi there, mybluedecember, fellow female student of the sciences here. 
Just wondering if you’re being serious with this response of yours or not? Because to have the audacity to say women are at a disadvantage in the STEM fields is one of the more ridiculous things I’ve seen on tumblr, and I’ve seen some really really ignorant, stupid, and naive crap on this godforsaken website. 
Oh, ‘waa waaa, people didn’t encourage me in high school. Let me go cry about misogyny!’ Seriously? Aww, poor bby, were people mean to you on high school? News flash: people get bullied in high school! It’s not because you’re a girl, it’s because you’re a high school student! Just let go of this victim complex you have and you’ll be so much better off. There were rumors going around about how you couldn’t program a robot? Let me tell you, if that is the worst rumor you’ve had spread about you, you got off easy, and I am incredibly jealous. It doesn’t matter if you were in a beauty pageant, on the cheer squad, dance team, track team, swim team, spelling bee, or robotics team, high school students are not supportive of fellow high school students. Welcome to the real world, hon. No one gives a second thought to your being a /girl/ in robotics. Get over yourself and get over your gender. 
And seriously?? Did you really just say there isn’t a lot of encouragement for women to go into STEM??? Do you even LIVE on planet earth? Women get more encouragement then men now! You don’t see Bill Nye saying boys should go into science! No, he’s saying lets get fewer guys and more girls! Uh… really? Bill Nye was my childhood, and I adore him as much as the next person, but come on people, he is human. He is not infallible, nor the end-all be-all of science. 
Oh my god, I absolutely despised the amount of “encouragement” I got for being a woman entering STEM. I started out as an engineering major, and the amount of dollars I was offered in scholarships purely because of my gender was ridiculous! I don’t want these schools’ money because I have a vagina instead of a penis, I want these schools’ dollars because I am damn good at what I do. But unfortunately, my applications were boiled down to that little box checked “female” and that little box checked “engineering”. 
Let me tell you something else about that point you brought up saying STEM used to be a “‘boys only’ club”: WHO CARES?? Voting used to be a boys only club. Doesn’t mean your vote right now should count for two. Because you’re still a human being. Neither superior nor inferior to any other gender. These schools you pointed out? I was accepted to all but one of them, that one being a school that I didn’t apply for. But I’ll bet you every penny I have in the bank that I would have gotten in. Did I deserve to get into all of them? Probably not. I’m smart, yes. But do I have one of the tops minds of the country? Odds are against it. However, because I’m a woman, I get special treatment. These schools all allow women now, so why are you bringing it up? Women didn’t go to college back then. It was a different time. Women go to college now, so these schools are open for women. Besides, you’d be hard pressed to find men-only schools or scholarships, while women only schools and scholarships are a fine a dozen. Stop bringing up things that happened fifty years ago to try and get people to pity our gender. I don’t want pity, I want respect, and women can’t get that if you keep bringing up the past and whining about how it’s not fair to you now when it has literally NOTHING to do with you. 
Yes, a majority of the great minds of the sciences have been men in the past, but a majority of the great minds in sciences now are men as well. Now before you go crying to your followers “WAAAH WAHH THE EVIL PATRIARCHY,” take a moment to realize that men and women are different. Alright? In the structure of the human brain, the very wiring of our neurons, we are different. I’ll try to keep it simple and short, but the most significant difference aside from the chemistry of the genders is the thickness of the corpus callosum, the main function of which is connecting the cortices. Women typically have a thicker one, making them better at things like recognizing and understanding emotions, understanding other people, grasping languages, and other such intangible and abstract concepts. Men, with a thinner corpus callosum are typically better suited for things like mathematics and spatial reasoning. Does this mean that either gender is superior to the other? No. Just different. Does this mean that all men and only men are good at analytical things? Of freaking course not. It’s just a general concept. I personally am terrible at emotional things, and despised English Spanish and History courses, and absolutely reveled in the math and science ones. 
I absolutely loathe this third wave feminist movement, as well as whatever this post is also advocating, because it paints women as inferior and in need of help. I don’t want to be known because I am a female scientist. I want to be known because I am damn good at my job. And if I suck and fall on my ass, I don’t want people to help me up and go “it’s okay, you’re a woman, it’s society’s fault that you didn’t do well, try again.” No, you idiot, it’s because I wasn’t as good as others in my field. How the hell does helping me purely and solely because I’m a woman benefit anyone??

Response written by me and posted on my main blog

marvinaparanoidandroid:

scienceing:

mybluedecember:

princess-munchkin:

How the fuck does Bill Nye expect this to happen? What do you want to do, force women to enroll in science courses, regardless of whether or not they want to do it? Just for the sake of having “enough” women? Why the fuck do these fractions matter so much? It’s not like people are holding guns to our head and threatening to kill us if we become interested in science.

Maybe, just maybe, a lot of us DON’T FUCKING WANT to be scientists. Is that a crime?

Hi there, princess-munchkin. Female engineering student here. 

Bill Nye is not saying that you HAVE to be a scientist, and you are right that no one is holding a gun to my head because I am interested in science, but let me tell you some of the struggles of being a woman in the STEM fields. 

1) Because I am a woman, I am not expected these fields. I first fully realized this when I was in high school, on my robotics team. See, although my robotics team was about 50% female, most of the women were part of the “business administration” side of things: finance, marketting, PR, membership, etc. Was this a problem? Absolutely not. But I was there to be an engineer, and specifically, to be the robot programmer. This was met with a lot of hesitation at first from some of the other students (all of whom happened to be male. This is not necessarily a bad thing.) You see, all of the robot programmers before me were guys. Computer programming is just a thing that guys do, or so they thought. Even after I had proved myself to the mentors on the team, many of the students still underestimated my abilities. There were rumors going around that I wouldn’t have been able to program the robot at all if the lead software mentor wasn’t there to help me. This was just flat-out false, but it wasn’t until I won an award for the team that the other students actually saw my merit. 

2) There is not a lot of encouragement for women to go into these fields. I first noticed this when I was in elementary school. I was always interested in math, science, you name it, but many of my teachers and family members pushed that to the side for a long time. When I asked for legos for christmas, I would get ballet slippers. In fact, for a long time, I was training to be a professional dancer. I loved to dance. I loved math more, but no one seemed to notice that about me. It wasn’t until I had a long conversation with one particular teacher in high school that I decided to look into engineering. I had never even considered it as an option before, because no one decided to encourage me to pursue my interest in science. If it hadn’t been for that teacher, I would probably not be at the school I am at right now. 

3) For a long time, Engineering/Science/Math WAS a “boys only” club. Let me tell you when some of the top technical schools and societies started letting women in:

  • RPI, The oldest tech school in the country, founded in 1824. Started admitting women in 1942 to “replace men called to war.” Campus housing for women wasn’t constructed until 1966. 
  • Tau Beta Pi, the Engineering Honors Society - Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1968.
  • Caltech - Currently rated #3 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1891. Started admitting women in 1970. 
  • Georgia Tech - Currently rated #5 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1952. 

Do you see the implications of this? Engineering has been a part of our society since around the late 1800s (in the case of RPI, since the 1820s), but women weren’t even allowed in for the most part until the 1950s, regardless of their merit. 

4) Because of the fact that it was a “boys only” club for such a long time, there are not a lot of women engineers and scientists to look up to. When you’re reading your physics, chemistry, and math text books, the majority of those theories were came up with by men. It is true that much of our history was written by White Men, but this does not mean that the fact that there are few women scientists to look up does not matter. 

So, as you can hopefully see, princess-munckin, or anyone else that shares the opinions of princess-munchkin, Bill Nye was not arguing that women that are not interested in STEM should go into those fields anyway. But he IS arguing against all of the systematic barriers set up against women who ARE interested in engineering and science. There are several women out there who are just as good as the boys at math and science, but will never pursue their interests because it just doesn’t seem like an option. That was me for a long time. I am super grateful for the fact that I fought against that, and that I ended up where I am. 

if you don’t like science, fine. Don’t be a scientist. But if one day you have a daughter and she shows interest in being a scientist, PLEASE encourage her. Because Bill Nye is right, there needs to be more women scientists in the world. 

A+ comment

Hi there, mybluedecember, fellow female student of the sciences here. 
Just wondering if you’re being serious with this response of yours or not? Because to have the audacity to say women are at a disadvantage in the STEM fields is one of the more ridiculous things I’ve seen on tumblr, and I’ve seen some really really ignorant, stupid, and naive crap on this godforsaken website. 
Oh, ‘waa waaa, people didn’t encourage me in high school. Let me go cry about misogyny!’ Seriously? Aww, poor bby, were people mean to you on high school? News flash: people get bullied in high school! It’s not because you’re a girl, it’s because you’re a high school student! Just let go of this victim complex you have and you’ll be so much better off. There were rumors going around about how you couldn’t program a robot? Let me tell you, if that is the worst rumor you’ve had spread about you, you got off easy, and I am incredibly jealous. It doesn’t matter if you were in a beauty pageant, on the cheer squad, dance team, track team, swim team, spelling bee, or robotics team, high school students are not supportive of fellow high school students. Welcome to the real world, hon. No one gives a second thought to your being a /girl/ in robotics. Get over yourself and get over your gender. 
And seriously?? Did you really just say there isn’t a lot of encouragement for women to go into STEM??? Do you even LIVE on planet earth? Women get more encouragement then men now! You don’t see Bill Nye saying boys should go into science! No, he’s saying lets get fewer guys and more girls! Uh… really? Bill Nye was my childhood, and I adore him as much as the next person, but come on people, he is human. He is not infallible, nor the end-all be-all of science. 
Oh my god, I absolutely despised the amount of “encouragement” I got for being a woman entering STEM. I started out as an engineering major, and the amount of dollars I was offered in scholarships purely because of my gender was ridiculous! I don’t want these schools’ money because I have a vagina instead of a penis, I want these schools’ dollars because I am damn good at what I do. But unfortunately, my applications were boiled down to that little box checked “female” and that little box checked “engineering”. 
Let me tell you something else about that point you brought up saying STEM used to be a “‘boys only’ club”: WHO CARES?? Voting used to be a boys only club. Doesn’t mean your vote right now should count for two. Because you’re still a human being. Neither superior nor inferior to any other gender. These schools you pointed out? I was accepted to all but one of them, that one being a school that I didn’t apply for. But I’ll bet you every penny I have in the bank that I would have gotten in. Did I deserve to get into all of them? Probably not. I’m smart, yes. But do I have one of the tops minds of the country? Odds are against it. However, because I’m a woman, I get special treatment. These schools all allow women now, so why are you bringing it up? Women didn’t go to college back then. It was a different time. Women go to college now, so these schools are open for women. Besides, you’d be hard pressed to find men-only schools or scholarships, while women only schools and scholarships are a fine a dozen. Stop bringing up things that happened fifty years ago to try and get people to pity our gender. I don’t want pity, I want respect, and women can’t get that if you keep bringing up the past and whining about how it’s not fair to you now when it has literally NOTHING to do with you. 
Yes, a majority of the great minds of the sciences have been men in the past, but a majority of the great minds in sciences now are men as well. Now before you go crying to your followers “WAAAH WAHH THE EVIL PATRIARCHY,” take a moment to realize that men and women are different. Alright? In the structure of the human brain, the very wiring of our neurons, we are different. I’ll try to keep it simple and short, but the most significant difference aside from the chemistry of the genders is the thickness of the corpus callosum, the main function of which is connecting the cortices. Women typically have a thicker one, making them better at things like recognizing and understanding emotions, understanding other people, grasping languages, and other such intangible and abstract concepts. Men, with a thinner corpus callosum are typically better suited for things like mathematics and spatial reasoning. Does this mean that either gender is superior to the other? No. Just different. Does this mean that all men and only men are good at analytical things? Of freaking course not. It’s just a general concept. I personally am terrible at emotional things, and despised English Spanish and History courses, and absolutely reveled in the math and science ones. 
I absolutely loathe this third wave feminist movement, as well as whatever this post is also advocating, because it paints women as inferior and in need of help. I don’t want to be known because I am a female scientist. I want to be known because I am damn good at my job. And if I suck and fall on my ass, I don’t want people to help me up and go “it’s okay, you’re a woman, it’s society’s fault that you didn’t do well, try again.” No, you idiot, it’s because I wasn’t as good as others in my field. How the hell does helping me purely and solely because I’m a woman benefit anyone??

Response written by me and posted on my main blog

(via allusionillusion)

asker

Anonymous asked: you do realize that's not how insurance works right?

Then it’s a good thing the post wasn’t talking about insurance, huh?

"Internalized Misogyny"

lady-of-anti-feminism:

Is a term used by feminists to shame intelligent women who dare not identified with the bullshit ideology know as “Feminism”. 

Example of “Internalized Misogyny” in a sentence.

"Wow. How dare you think for yourself!. You are have internalized misogyny. Feminism thinks for you."

"Using facts to debunk feminism and you are female! INTERNALIZED MISOGYNY!"

(via 23claw-deactivated20131005)

anactualrealfetus

prolifeforthosewithoutachoice:

2spooki4u:

anti-sexism-raptor:

prolifeforthosewithoutachoice:

Don’t send them anything, don’t even speak to them. Everyone who is sending “love” or saying that they enjoy their blog are monsters. And in 20 years when our children are told about abortion in history books, they’ll look at them just as they will look at slave-owners—as monsters.

They’re the monsters saying this;

image

isn’t a baby. (source)

ROOOOOOOAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR

or how about not using a heartbroken family’s tragedy to pedal your malicious lies you absolute shitheap

That’s funny, when faced with the reality of your choice, and see with your own eyes the tragedy that is abortion, you try to play martyr for the pain of the parents. Disgusting.

The MOTHER published those pictures for this very purpose. She wanted to show the world what a “fetus” looks like at 19 weeks (which is 5 weeks before the legal cut-off date for abortions; remember wendy davis was fighting to have an abortion after 20+ weeks). She did this so that she could EDUCATE people like YOU of the realities of aborting a baby after so many weeks.

You say a baby does not become a “person” and is merely a “clump of cells” until it’s either birthed or until it develops brain-wave activity… Well,

Do you not see this 19 week baby?

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

Doesn’t look like a clump of cells now does it?

(via yourpoliticsarestupid)