Not Untitled

Bestie. How dare you leave “do not mock the life preserver…” in the tags.

@sseanettles

I’ll always reblog Martin and Bosco when they splash across my dash, because of Reasons.

"Simply put, the endless relitigation of how we owe it to men not to speak plainly about their exploitation and abuse of us—a conversation that largely occurs between anglophonic women in certain socioeconomic spheres who have the ability to choose who to partner with to a degree that is mostly denied to women worldwide—pisses me off. If you are lucky enough to be able to determine what your relationship to men is, I would suggest you have a responsibility to do more than muse about whether it’s unfair of you to say any harsh words about the guys happily mainstreaming incel ideology and birthrate panics into the modern political landscape. Because that’s the part we keep stubbornly ignoring in these discussions: that today, men everywhere want more patriarchy. A lot of feminists seem to be laboring under a collective amnesia of what the feminism that led us to this political moment was actually all about. We had nearly forty years of 'patriarchy hurts men too' and sex positivity and making the case for anti-patriarchal politics to men. It did not result in the downfall of patriarchy, or a mass defection of men to the feminist cause. Instead, today we have Andrew Tate and fundamentalist Christian theocracy in mainstream US politics and Mark Zuckerberg going on podcasts to talk about how women in already male-dominated tech workplaces bring too much 'female energy'."

Fathers also get custody less because they are less likely to fight for it, partially due to the myth that they'll never win custody. Source

“Had the chance to codify the Voting Rights Act—“ Do these morons even know what the VRA was? IT WAS LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW BY A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. What else were Democrats supposed to do? It was literally the law of the land!

They just copy-paste lifted it from the Roe v Wade discourse. Abortion was, in fact, never codified in federal law. I doubt that such a law would have much slowed down a court as hostile as the one we have now, they overturn federal legislation a lot, but it's true that there wasn't a law.

Baffled by the people who think they’re *protecting children* by forcing them to be raised by someone who would rather have had an abortion. Especially wrt to disabled/neurodivergent/homosexual? (You guys know there’s not a gene for that, right? Tell me you know born this way doesn’t mean it’s genetic). The kinds of people who would test for that and have an abortion for that reason are probably not going to be good parents kid, and disabled kids already mostly don’t get adopted out of foster care. I really don’t get it. If you believe in souls/heaven/etc then it sounds like the kid is better off being aborted than growing up in misery, and if you don’t believe in souls/heaven/etc then it still sounds like the kid is better off aborted.

“Haha remember when murder-hornets were gonna be a thing? What a nothingburger.”

The other night husband and I were watching a documentary about the yeti where they were doing DNA analysis of samples of supposed yeti fur, and every one of them came back as bears.

At time of posting, this is at 711.6k notes

Trickery

Movement nudge!

it’s even worse when people try to spin it as a privileged role, rather than an unpaid job that may or may not have been forced into the woman due to limited resources for childcare, poor protection of maternity rights, and other issues.