fucknovideogames:

According to Ubisoft technical director James Therien, Assassin’s Creed Unity will not include playable women because it would be too much work.

No, really, that’s what he said.

"It was on our feature list until not too long ago, but it’s a question of focus and…

thebicker:

chakrabot:

maja-stina:

fandomsandfeminism:

generalmaluga:

albinwonderland:

fandomsandfeminism:

betterthanabortion:

"My body, my choice" only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.
See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 
Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 
To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 
You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

reblogging for commentary 

But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too. 

First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation. 
And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.
Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.
If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 
When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.
When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 
And that is gross. 

This has been added to since I last saw it, so reblogging again.

Busted wide open.

All of the above and ALSO: That x-ray is of a baby that is full-term. It’s just about to be born. That is NOT when abortions happen, ever. If this were a real x-ray of an average person who was pregnant and about to get an abortion, the fetus would be almost invisible in a big x-ray like this. Kinda weird that the pro-life movement needs to aggressively misinform people to make their point.
(Also you can’t give pregnant people x-rays. It’s dangerous to the fetus no matter what stage of pregnancy you’re in. Not that I would expect pro-lifers to have any medical knowledge whatsoever or anything.)

thebicker:

chakrabot:

maja-stina:

fandomsandfeminism:

generalmaluga:

albinwonderland:

fandomsandfeminism:

betterthanabortion:

"My body, my choice" only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

reblogging for commentary 

But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too. 

First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation. 

And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.

Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.

If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 

When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.

When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 

And that is gross. 

This has been added to since I last saw it, so reblogging again.

Busted wide open.

All of the above and ALSO: That x-ray is of a baby that is full-term. It’s just about to be born. That is NOT when abortions happen, ever. If this were a real x-ray of an average person who was pregnant and about to get an abortion, the fetus would be almost invisible in a big x-ray like this. Kinda weird that the pro-life movement needs to aggressively misinform people to make their point.

(Also you can’t give pregnant people x-rays. It’s dangerous to the fetus no matter what stage of pregnancy you’re in. Not that I would expect pro-lifers to have any medical knowledge whatsoever or anything.)

baileyeverywhere:

I have no idea what these weird flowers are. New Haven seems to like them. The buds look like 金平糖, that’s all I know.

baileyeverywhere:

I have no idea what these weird flowers are. New Haven seems to like them. The buds look like 金平糖, that’s all I know.

yayfeminism:

my-weight-loss-diary40:

yayfeminism:

Fat acceptance does not mean you have to find fat people attractive. It’s about ending discrimination against fat people.

People deserve respect no matter what size they are, and you don’t need to be attracted to someone to…

Gentrifiers focus on aesthetics, not people. Because people, to them, are aesthetics.

Proponents of gentrification will vouch for its benevolence by noting it “cleaned up the neighbourhood”. This is often code for a literal white-washing. The problems that existed in the neighbourhood - poverty, lack of opportunity, struggling populations denied city services - did not go away. They were simply priced out to a new location.

That new location is often an impoverished suburb, which lacks the glamour to make it the object of future renewal efforts. There is no history to attract preservationists because there is nothing in poor suburbs viewed as worth preserving, including the futures of the people forced to live in them. This is blight without beauty, ruin without romance: payday loan stores, dollar stores, unassuming homes and unpaid bills. In the suburbs, poverty looks banal and is overlooked.

In cities, gentrifiers have the political clout - and accompanying racial privilege - to reallocate resources and repair infrastructure. The neighbourhood is “cleaned up” through the removal of its residents. Gentrifiers can then bask in “urban life” - the storied history, the selective nostalgia, the carefully sprinkled grit - while avoiding responsibility to those they displaced.

Sarah Kendzior - The peril of hipster economics (x)

policymic:

Attention George Will, this is what #SurvivorPrivilege really looks like

Over at the Washington Post, a supremely out of touch article by conservative columnist George F. Will makes the infuriating claim that victims of sexual assault enjoy “a coveted status that confers privileges.” His logic suggests that because of a supposed liberal plot to bestow some sort of benefit on rape survivors “victims proliferate.”

Of all the tone-deaf rape-denying arguments we’ve heard, this one might take the cake.

Read more 

siddharthasmama:

eccentricmango:

I’m just gonna leave this here.

like it truly amazes me that these countries engaging in this deliberate infringement on human rights can just WASTE money on developing anti-homeless shit like spikes, barred benches, or timed seating, but not spend any of that to FIX their homeless problem by either building shelters, coming up with programs to help, or increasing benefits. The idea that people are homeless by choice, or just ‘too lazy’ needs to fucking end. Most homeless are either disabled veterans, people with mental illness, LGBTQ youth/individuals whose families have abandoned them, or, my personal favorite, entire fucking families with children who have been displaced. Seriously, these people are not a burden, our worlds globalized capitalist structuring is.

siddharthasmama:

eccentricmango:

I’m just gonna leave this here.

like it truly amazes me that these countries engaging in this deliberate infringement on human rights can just WASTE money on developing anti-homeless shit like spikes, barred benches, or timed seating, but not spend any of that to FIX their homeless problem by either building shelters, coming up with programs to help, or increasing benefits. The idea that people are homeless by choice, or just ‘too lazy’ needs to fucking end. Most homeless are either disabled veterans, people with mental illness, LGBTQ youth/individuals whose families have abandoned them, or, my personal favorite, entire fucking families with children who have been displaced. Seriously, these people are not a burden, our worlds globalized capitalist structuring is.

annekewrites:


Wow. This is perfect.

annekewrites:

Wow. This is perfect.

ashkenazi-autie:

asktheteamofscientists:

scifi-reality:

"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"
"Women have to protect other women"

And that means white women protecting WOC.
Cis women protecting trans women.
Straight women protecting queer women.
Abled women protecting disabled women.
Not just white cishet abled women protecting other white cishet abled women.

Not to mention that the woman in the gif is Angel Haze, a pansexual black indigenous woman  (who has some Native ancestry). 

[angel haze highly values her native ancestry, she’s a member of cherokee nation and taught herself tsalagi, and it’s important that we acknowledge that, esp. considering the lack of native american voice in so much media]