Fortune sides with him who dares.

sexistfacebookdudes:

skyliting:

rememberyes:

boldmatter:

jadelyn:

likeadeadchinadoll:

and for those interested, you can find the report HERE

Just in case any dudebros are unclear on what this means: it means that your buddy who totally just had some bitch trying to ruin his life by accusing him of rape…almost certainly actually did rape her.  

Just keep that in mind.

Yeah man, imagine that, bitches don’t be lying.

Can we put this into context? It means that 99.4% of rape allegations are true

It means that 99.4% of rape allegations are true.

For the person asking before about false rape accusations


I strongly disagree with anyone who says Maleficent isn’t the best Disney villain. No singing, no dancing, no long expositions about her plans, no tolerance for bumbling comedy sidekicks (she electrocutes a whole room full of minions when she finds out they’ve fucked up and spent the last few years searching for a baby), just outright malicious intent.
I mean let’s take a look at her motivations compared to other popular Disney villains:SCAR - Wanted to become King. 
URSULA - Wanted to rule the seas.
WICKED QUEEN - Wanted to rule as the most beautiful woman in the land.
JAFAR - Wanted to rule in the Sultan’s place and/or obtain ultimate power.
Maleficient, by contrast, didn’t want any of that. She didn’t want more power. She didn’t want fame. She didn’t want to rule. She just wanted to raise hell. This is the woman who decided that every newborn child in the kingdom should die and that the land should be covered in darkness for one reason - SHE WASN’T INVITED TO A MOTHERFUCKING PARTY.
That’s right, the evil bitch basically condemned an entire kingdom to die at her hands because she didn’t get invited to a christening.
This is not a woman with a motivation. She cannot be reasoned with. Her actions cannot be rationalized. She is evil for the fun of being evil, not because she wants something.
THAT, my friends, is the ultimate villain. One who knows they’re evil and LOVES it.

I strongly disagree with anyone who says Maleficent isn’t the best Disney villain. No singing, no dancing, no long expositions about her plans, no tolerance for bumbling comedy sidekicks (she electrocutes a whole room full of minions when she finds out they’ve fucked up and spent the last few years searching for a baby), just outright malicious intent.

I mean let’s take a look at her motivations compared to other popular Disney villains:

SCAR - Wanted to become King. 

URSULA - Wanted to rule the seas.

WICKED QUEEN - Wanted to rule as the most beautiful woman in the land.

JAFAR - Wanted to rule in the Sultan’s place and/or obtain ultimate power.

Maleficient, by contrast, didn’t want any of that. She didn’t want more power. She didn’t want fame. She didn’t want to rule. She just wanted to raise hell. This is the woman who decided that every newborn child in the kingdom should die and that the land should be covered in darkness for one reason - SHE WASN’T INVITED TO A MOTHERFUCKING PARTY.

That’s right, the evil bitch basically condemned an entire kingdom to die at her hands because she didn’t get invited to a christening.

This is not a woman with a motivation. She cannot be reasoned with. Her actions cannot be rationalized. She is evil for the fun of being evil, not because she wants something.

THAT, my friends, is the ultimate villain. One who knows they’re evil and LOVES it.

To be white, or straight, or male, or middle class is to be simultaneously ubiquitious and invisible. You’re everywhere you look, you’re the standard against which everyone else is measured. You’re like water, like air. People will tell you they went to see a “woman doctor” or they will say they went to see “the doctor.” People will tell you they have a “gay colleague” or they’ll tell you about a colleague. A white person will be happy to tell you about a “Black friend,” but when that same person simply mentions a “friend,” everyone will assume the person is white. Any college course that doesn’t have the word “woman” or “gay” or “minority” in its title is a course about men, heterosexuals, and white people. But we call those courses “literature,” “history” or “political science.”

This invisibility is political.

Michael S. Kimmel, in the introduction to the book, “Privilege: A Reader” (via thinkspeakstress)

Does he mean “ubiquitous and visible?” White, str8, male, middle class people aren’t exactly “invisible…”

You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting “Vanity,” thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for you own pleasure.
John Berger Ways of Seeing

feministdisney:

The whole “feminism is sexist” thing because it concentrates on women’s issues is so ridiculous.  You would never go to a cancer prevention group and give them lip about how they’re anti-health because “their focus isn’t about preventing all diseases and bodily problems.”   Focus and specialization are generally helpful to the aims of any organization, and are not de facto indicators of special privilege or in this case, “sexism.”   

How is cooking feminine i mean it’s fuckin knives and fuckin fire and fuckin dead shit 

feministdisney:

thebirdsofalbion:





feministdisney:





belmarc:






feministdisney:







 this is when Hades is telling Meg to basically seduce Hercules
I just tried imagining him ever doing that to a male protagonist like can you imagine him moving his arms in the air around Hercules like that?   It would look so weird.   No one would even think to ever animate such a scene.   
He’s referring to Meg as a person with his plan, but he gives us the visual of “Hercule’s potential weakness” as being basically, an outline of her boobs and butt.   A micro example- IMO- of how we’re taught to see women’s bodies intersect intrinsically with sexuality, in a way that we are not taught to see men’s bodies (which is why a woman’s silhouette is frequently used as a universal indicator of “sexy”).
I probably way underexplained this but it’s laaate and I’m tired







Well, Hades is a bad guy. He’s going about evil things in evil ways. What he is doing is not SUPPOSED to be good.






I think you’re missing the point.  It’s not a moral debate of Hade’s life choices?   it’s pointing out that as a bad guy, he would still never do this to the good guy.    Because good or bad, no one would be like “Hey Hercules, you owe me one, and I have this plan for you to use your, heh heh, ‘wit’” *Hades, standing behind Hercules, suddenly traces, with his hands, the muscles of Hercule’s arms down to his butt* “To win this battle.”
It’s possible I’m tired and having too much fun imagining that happening but my point is, a scene like that will only ever exist in my head.  You can’t divorce it from the context of it being done to a woman’s body because that is exactly, specifically, what I was referring to.





To be fair, I find certain male silhouettes to be just as intrinsically “sexy” as certain female ones.  Case in point: 

Also, can we imagine a female character tracing the outline of a hero’s muscles/torso/body?  I can….





it’s not THAT sort of silhouette used in advertising-  (because that’s not a silhouette tbh, and it’s not even his body really, half of it is his coat) of course many people find certain men’s bodies sexy or attractive.   That isn’t the issue at hand.     Google “sexy silhouette”- not gendered, just, “sexy,” and see just how many of them deviate from being a slim, typically female body.   That is not an anomaly.   This is why beer companies, night clubs, bars, movies, etc. can advertise to both sexes using the silhouette of a woman, but not a man.   Not in theory of what we can imagine, but in practice of what they actually do.   What straight men [are assumed by media to] see as sexy is portrayed in our culture as a universal symbol of sexuality.
Whether or not you can imagine it is not the point- I surely hope you can- the point is whether it actually occurs, and the reasons why it does in one case, but not the other.   You won’t be able to find an example of the reverse of this happening.   The actual tracing with hands, the implication.

feministdisney:

thebirdsofalbion:

feministdisney:

belmarc:

feministdisney:

 this is when Hades is telling Meg to basically seduce Hercules

I just tried imagining him ever doing that to a male protagonist like can you imagine him moving his arms in the air around Hercules like that?   It would look so weird.   No one would even think to ever animate such a scene.   

He’s referring to Meg as a person with his plan, but he gives us the visual of “Hercule’s potential weakness” as being basically, an outline of her boobs and butt.   A micro example- IMO- of how we’re taught to see women’s bodies intersect intrinsically with sexuality, in a way that we are not taught to see men’s bodies (which is why a woman’s silhouette is frequently used as a universal indicator of “sexy”).

I probably way underexplained this but it’s laaate and I’m tired

Well, Hades is a bad guy. He’s going about evil things in evil ways. What he is doing is not SUPPOSED to be good.

I think you’re missing the point.  It’s not a moral debate of Hade’s life choices?   it’s pointing out that as a bad guy, he would still never do this to the good guy.    Because good or bad, no one would be like “Hey Hercules, you owe me one, and I have this plan for you to use your, heh heh, ‘wit’” *Hades, standing behind Hercules, suddenly traces, with his hands, the muscles of Hercule’s arms down to his butt* “To win this battle.”

It’s possible I’m tired and having too much fun imagining that happening but my point is, a scene like that will only ever exist in my head.  You can’t divorce it from the context of it being done to a woman’s body because that is exactly, specifically, what I was referring to.

To be fair, I find certain male silhouettes to be just as intrinsically “sexy” as certain female ones.  Case in point: 

image

Also, can we imagine a female character tracing the outline of a hero’s muscles/torso/body?  I can….

it’s not THAT sort of silhouette used in advertising-  (because that’s not a silhouette tbh, and it’s not even his body really, half of it is his coat) of course many people find certain men’s bodies sexy or attractive.   That isn’t the issue at hand.     Google “sexy silhouette”- not gendered, just, “sexy,” and see just how many of them deviate from being a slim, typically female body.   That is not an anomaly.   This is why beer companies, night clubs, bars, movies, etc. can advertise to both sexes using the silhouette of a woman, but not a man.   Not in theory of what we can imagine, but in practice of what they actually do.   What straight men [are assumed by media to] see as sexy is portrayed in our culture as a universal symbol of sexuality.

Whether or not you can imagine it is not the point- I surely hope you can- the point is whether it actually occurs, and the reasons why it does in one case, but not the other.   You won’t be able to find an example of the reverse of this happening.   The actual tracing with hands, the implication.

Imagine you’re at a party. A guy offers you a drink. You say no. He says “Come on, one drink!” You say “no thanks.” Later, he brings you a soda. “I know you said you didn’t want a drink, but I was getting one for myself and you looked thirsty.” For you to refuse at this point makes you the asshole. He’s just being nice, right? Predators use the social contract and our own good hearts and fear of being rude against us. If you drink the drink, you’re teaching him that it just takes a little persistence on his part to overcome your “no.” If you say “Really, I appreciate it, but no thanks” and put the drink down and walk away from it, you’re the one who looks rude in that moment. But the fact is, you didn’t ask for the drink and you don’t want the drink and you don’t have to drink it just to make some guy feel validated.

The art of “no,” continued: Saying no when you’ve already said yes. « CaptainAwkward.com

I love this post SO MUCH. 

(via heavenearthandhoratio)

Predators use the social contract and our own good hearts and fear of being rude against us”

I think this is SO, SO important to remember.   Like that is part of the difficult in “just say no to them” because they understand how (I’m thinking of sexual assault cases in particular right now) the victim is geared to want to downplay the situation, to mitigate the issue.    And it sucks because we’re all aware of how this works in our lives but people will use it in their rape defenses- “She never said no” “She let me buy her a drink” “She didn’t tell me to leave” etc, etc, etc.    

But I am maybe detracting from the point which wasn’t necessarily about sexual assault or anything.  It is true that you should always remind yourself that you can be “rude” especially when it’s someone else trying to force you into conversation etc. by using your kindness or desire not to be rude, against us.

(via feministdisney)

padaviya:

California Judge Tells Victim of Rape Her Body Should Have “Shut Down” Her Rape (via RH Reality Check)

California Superior Court Judge Derek Johnson faces a rare public reprimand after comments from the bench that a woman didn’t “put up a fight” during her rape and that if her body didn’t want the rape to happen it would “not permit this to happen.”

Johnson made the comments in the case of a man who threatened to mutilate the face and genitals of his ex-girlfriend with a heated screwdriver, beat her with a metal baton and made other sexually violent threats against her before beating and raping her. Johnson’s comments criticized the victim for failing to report the assault immediately.

"I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case," Johnson said.

Johnson is a former prosecutor in the Orange County district attorney’s sex crimes unit.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance voted 10-0 to impose a public admonishing, calling the comments inappropriate and a breach of judicial ethics. “In the commission’s view, the judge’s remarks reflected outdated, biased and insensitive views about sexual assault victims who do not ‘put up a fight.’ Such comments cannot help but diminish public confidence and trust in the impartiality of the judiciary,” wrote Lawrence J. Simi, the commission’s chairman.

California law does not require a rape victim prove they resisted or were prevented from resisting an assault because of threats in order to prove their claims against an attacker. Johnson’s statements, therefore, were not just inappropriate and disgusting, they were legally baseless as well.

Johnson has since apologized in a sense to the commission, claiming the comments came as a result of frustration with the prosecutor who was urging Johnson to impose a longer 16-year sentence rather than the six year sentence Johnson imposed. According to Johnson, the case was “worth” only six years given the victim’s failure to sufficiently fight back in Johnson’s view.

I don’t understand why some people think the body can “prevent rape.”

Don’t you think if people could prevent themselves from getting raped they would?

Sounds like crazy rapist logic to me: “oh she clearly wanted it because she could have stopped it but didn’t.” According to that logic he did nothing wrong.

Why did he get any jail time at all if he did nothing wrong? Why did he get 6 years if she “could have prevented it and didn’t?”

crazy rapist trying to justify victim blaming.