I figured all Mormon boys knew to respect women and not to push boundaries–a myth I was disabused of as roommates and friends told me their stories–so that was why we never addressed it in church. Because we all knew not to abuse other people.

What I didn’t realize was that my church pews are filled with women aching from the consequences of abuse, of rape, of incest, of assault. So why don’t we talk about this more? Why don’t we make it perfectly clear, for 11-year-olds to 99-year-olds, that our bodies are not the receptacles of other people’s shame?

213 notes

The public censure of women as if we are rabid because we speak without apology about the world in which we live is a strategy of threat that usually works. Men often react to women’s words—speaking and writing—as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women’s words with violence. So we lower our voices. Women whisper. Women apologize. Women shut up. Women trivialize what we know. Women shrink. Women pull back. Most women have experienced enough dominance from men—control, violence, insult, contempt—that no threat seems empty.

286 notes

internetcallgirl:

Part 2 of my contributions to the #YesAllWomen hashtag on Twitter. You can find part 1 here. Participate in the movement by tweeting about your experience with harassment, sexism, or abuse with the hashtag #YesAllWomen or #EachEveryWoman.

688 notes

lexlifts:

thornsandwillows:

If you take a young man and woman and they both tell a stranger that they work in the same restaurant, it’s very likely that they will assume that the woman is the waitress, and the young man a cook.

But I thought a woman’s place was in the kitchen? Not when she’s being paid for it. I can’t believe it took me this long to realize the implication of this. A woman’s place is one of servitude.

this fucking hit me like a fucking train 

253,140 notes

A Black man holding a wallet is more likely to be shot by the police than a White man holding a gun.

In 2002, a study by Joshua Correll and colleagues, called The Police Officer’s Dilemma, revealed a phenomenon also known as shooter-bias 

The study found that people hesitated longer to shoot an armed white target (and they were more likely to accidentally not shoot). Participants were quicker and more accurate with black armed targets but there were more “false alarms” (shooting them when they were unarmed). These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly

Read More

(via odinsblog)

These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly”

You’ve got to be kidding me. That’s total bullshit. If you’re going to shoot an unarmed black person and then claim to not have discriminatory views …What a crock of shit. 

(via fat-queer)

got that a little bass ackwards there, I think…first the subject claimed no (explicit) racial biases, and THEN they took the test which proved that, yes, they *did* have (implicit) racial bias

TBH though, focusing on that part of the study is, for me anyway, nearly beside the point —it’s like burying the lede: A Black man holding a wallet is more likely to be shot by the police than a White man holding a gun. That sentence is troubling enough without reading beyond the word ‘police’

Like I almost don’t give af about the whys, that experiment is proof enough that racial bias causes unjustified shootings (as if anyone seriously needs more convincing) and I just want it all to stop before more Black people like me are shot for no other reason than the color of our skin

but…if we gotta examine that last sentence, there’s nothing problematic with it, unless you’re interpreting it to say that the participants (or the authors meant that the participants) were not racist

It didn’t say that, and that’s kinda the whole point of the study: will your (white people) actions really match up to your claims?

like why even bother running this experiment on people who ALREADY freely admit to being virulent racists? What would that even prove?

breaking it down:

A) “These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views”

translation: test subjects *thought* they aren’t racist because they don’t use the n-word or voted for PBO or some ish like that —a lot of racists actually believe those two things alone eternally exempts them from being a racist

B) “…and wanted to treat all targets fairly” again, what the participants said, allegedly thought, or claimed they “wanted” doesn’t really count after they took a test which blatantly exposed that their actions proved every bit as racist as the actions of…well, a racist

the “Read More” link (in the original post above) and it’s article about Kofi Adu-Brempong goes into it a little more and isn’t giving any white person a pass for being “not racist”    it just shows that implicit racial bias can manifest in the same way—and is frequently just as deadly—as explicit racial bias

(via odinsblog)

13,209 notes

onlyblackgirl:

The history of film in one scene

(Source: frankoceanvevo)

157,370 notes

kirinodesu:

hana-chan asks important life questions

kirinodesu:

hana-chan asks important life questions

3,063 notes