femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.” femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.
See the full list | Follow policymic


I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.”

femininefreak:

policymic:

17 countries that have beat America to electing a female leader

The U.S may have grown accustomed to having predominately male leaders, but on an international scale, we’re not like many of our peers. Though women make up approximately half of the U.S.’s population, they hold fewer than 20% of legislative seats. And out of 44 presidents, not one has been female.

See the full listFollow policymic

I’m not sure “beat” is the right word, it’s not a competition. But it is important that we realize we are not “in first place.”

(via know-your-body)

Heading home for zombie Jesus day

asteptowardssurvival:

THIS. I was a virgin when I was raped, and I hate how uncomfortable I feel when “virginity” is brought up. I consider myself a virgin, but I feel like no one else does.

asteptowardssurvival:

THIS. I was a virgin when I was raped, and I hate how uncomfortable I feel when “virginity” is brought up. I consider myself a virgin, but I feel like no one else does.

(via lettheledout)

fatxslut:

hurpthederp:

kitcatsmeow:

Ed, Edd and Eddy are dead

Ed, Edd ‘n’ Eddy was one of Cartoon Network’s original programs created back in the late ’90s. It’s a pretty simple, wholesome show about three kids (all named some variation of Edward) who … really, they just spend a lot of time trying to scam the other kids on their block. They’re kind of assholes. OK, so maybe it’s not so wholesome.

The Theory:

You know what else isn’t wholesome? Dead kids. This theory proposes that all the children on the show are actually dead, and the neighborhood they live in is purgatory. But then again, they said the same thing about Lost and it turned out to be bullshit (mostly).

Why It’s Not That Crazy:

For one thing, some of these kids already look like they’re dead: Pretty much everyone in this neighborhood has weird skin tones or odd-colored tongues, like corpses might have.

But then there’s the fact that there are no adults in the show: They’re mentioned, but never seen. You do see vague silhouettes of adults on a few occasions, but they never move (yeah, that’s not creepy or anything). The closest thing to an adult we ever see is Eddy’s older brother, whom they meet the only time in the entire show’s history when they leave their neighborhood/purgatory. However, the guy turns out to be a complete piece of shit, meaning that it’s totally feasible that they were simply visiting him in hell.

This would also explain why the setting of the show is so hard to pinpoint: In one episode, the kids are seen using a typewriter, despite having been shown using a computer in another, and they seem to know what a cassette tape is, unlike most teens of the 2000s. The theory holds that this is because each one came from a different period in American history:

Rolf, the weird kid with the inexplicable Eastern European accent, died in the early 1900s in a farming accident. Johnny, the one whose best friend is a plank, comes from the 1920s, when owning a piece of wood with a face painted on it made you the most popular kid on the block. Jimmy, the sickly kid with yellowish skin, died of leukemia in the 2000s, and so on.

The theory also alleges that there’s one set of characters who aren’t dead, but not alive either. The antagonistic Kanker sisters, who frequently abuse and berate all the other kids on the show, are actually demons placed in purgatory to torture them. Coincidentally, they are the only regular characters who have pink tongues … just like non-dead people do.”

http://www.cracked.com/article_19882_6-insane-but-convincing-fan-theories-about-kids-cartoons_p2.html#ixzz2CBLBWLUp

MY MIND IS FUCKING BLOWN!!!

oh wow this is fucking COOL!

Go to the article and read the one about Doug.

(via catbattles)

tumblingdoe:

paintedgoat:

nasubionna:

THANK YOU. Manual labor is a noble profession, and extremely needed. And don’t tell me until you’ve worked as hard as many laborers do that a strong back isn’t as much a god-given blessing and talent as a sharp mind or whatever else.

I have a manual labor job. Because I choose to. I have worked in offices and such, but I absolutely HATE being cooped up. Unfortunately I do get self conscious when I meet someone and they ask me what I do. I hate that. I always hesitate because I don’t want them to judge me.

I really value what you do and respect you a great deal. Let’s eat portebello and swiss brats soon!

I don’t think it’s about devaluing workers. It’s about acknowledging how much harder they work. 

I’m a first generation college student. My Dad worked in a factory for 30 years and the rest of my family line is made of farmers and truck drivers. When they say “this is why you go to college” it’s because they don’t want me standing on my feet for 8-10 hours every day, doing dangerous work, being injured on the job, and getting a paycheck that doesn’t really compensate me. 

I’ve heard the same from many other first gens. 

It’s not that we don’t respect them. It’s that we respect the hell out of what they’ve put up with to provide for their families, but we would like a job that isn’t quite so physically demanding and often times dangerous.

nbprochoice:

Photo by Keri!  NBProchoice rally in Fredericton!

nbprochoice:

Photo by Keri!  NBProchoice rally in Fredericton!

(via provoice)

NEVER DIET AGAIN! Eat a tape worm.

Or … Just be as big and awesome as you already are.

hello-thelovelyfreak:

thephotogfeminist:

your-lies-ruin-lives:

suck-my-thermos:

proudly-pro-choice:

becksromager:

proudly-pro-choice:

becksromager:

lolatprolife:

becksromager:

This is a diagram of how abortion is carried out on a 23 week old fetus. The child is about a foot long and roughly one pound. He or she is starting to move and is developing blood vessels in their lung. They can hear your voice even if they cannot yet understand. The skin is thickening and fat storage begins. You can see the baby stretch as it’s arms and legs push at your belly. It is currently legal in the US to follow through with a second trimester abortion. This is only one of the three brutal procedures. Poisons are injected into the baby and it is torn limb from limb out of the mother. How can you justify this mass genocide?

Okay, repeat after me.

Abortions after 20 weeks make up only 1% of abortions, and that 1% is made up of medically necessary abortion, i.e the pregnant person is in danger or the foetus isn’t viable.

Fucking read up, you child. - Leigh

I’m aware of the statistics but that doesn’t change the fact that killing a child this late in the pregnancy is wrong. This is my opinion just as it is of others who are pro life. This late in the pregnancy, no matter how low the percentage, consists of poisoning a living being and tearing it limb from limb.

So you’re fully aware of the fact that abortion occurrences this late into a pregnancy are because of fetal anomalies or life threatening situations. But because you think “killing a child” is wrong (news flash: we all do. but abortion doesn’t involve killing children, only terminating pregnancies) you would rather let that pregnant person die. You are the antithesis of pro-life.

If you are a mother you should be willing to do absolutely anything in order to preserve your child’s life. If there is even a slight chance the baby could survive, I would pursue it in a heartbeat. Multiple people around me have made that choice and benefited by birthing their child and are now beyond glad they decided against this abortion. If you want an example of this, look up the birth of Tim Tebow. One becomes a mother at conception.

If I was in a situation like this, I would want to do everything in my power to survive. I would want to survive for my friends and family. I would want to survive for all of my loved ones, because I know how much it hurts to lose someone too soon. So yes, I would have an abortion if it meant that I would live to see another day.

I would not let myself die because there might be a chance that my fetus could be brought to term. I am not willing to die for that. Call me selfish, I don’t care.

You have no respect for people. The only thing you care about is the fetus. A potential person. Not the real person who could be standing right in front of you, dying because their pregnancy is literally killing them.

(By the way, Tim Tebow’s mother is the exception, not the rule. I suggest you look up Savita Halappanavar, one of the countless people who have died from being denied abortion care.)

"If you’re pregnant you should be willing to put yourself through sheer agony and the possibility of a painful death because the fetus in you is far more important than your life, even if the chances of the fetus living outside your body are pretty much null."

What a fucking selfish way to think.

(Just your daily reminder that the prolife movement is actually probirth. Even if it means the death of a born person and suffering for their born children, they do not care. In the least.) 

Piece of shit prolifer

Okay I’m all for a discussion about political views but after that you’re going to completely cancel out everything you’ve said and make you look like an idiot by saying “piece of shit prolifer.” That is crossing the line. Stop.

Anyone that values a fetus’s CHANCE at life over the life of the mother is a piece of shit.

personhoodusa:

Animals are treated more humanely than preborn humans. http://ift.tt/1gf4Jad

Because there’s no reason to dismember an autonomous puppy?

personhoodusa:

http://ift.tt/1kUFVID

How long is it going to take them to realize that NO ONE is saying a fetus isn’t “human”

your-lies-ruin-lives:

suck-my-thermos:

proudly-pro-choice:

becksromager:

proudly-pro-choice:

becksromager:

lolatprolife:

becksromager:

This is a diagram of how abortion is carried out on a 23 week old fetus. The child is about a foot long and roughly one pound. He or she is starting to move and is developing blood vessels in their lung. They can hear your voice even if they cannot yet understand. The skin is thickening and fat storage begins. You can see the baby stretch as it’s arms and legs push at your belly. It is currently legal in the US to follow through with a second trimester abortion. This is only one of the three brutal procedures. Poisons are injected into the baby and it is torn limb from limb out of the mother. How can you justify this mass genocide?

Okay, repeat after me.

Abortions after 20 weeks make up only 1% of abortions, and that 1% is made up of medically necessary abortion, i.e the pregnant person is in danger or the foetus isn’t viable.

Fucking read up, you child. - Leigh

I’m aware of the statistics but that doesn’t change the fact that killing a child this late in the pregnancy is wrong. This is my opinion just as it is of others who are pro life. This late in the pregnancy, no matter how low the percentage, consists of poisoning a living being and tearing it limb from limb.

So you’re fully aware of the fact that abortion occurrences this late into a pregnancy are because of fetal anomalies or life threatening situations. But because you think “killing a child” is wrong (news flash: we all do. but abortion doesn’t involve killing children, only terminating pregnancies) you would rather let that pregnant person die. You are the antithesis of pro-life.

If you are a mother you should be willing to do absolutely anything in order to preserve your child’s life. If there is even a slight chance the baby could survive, I would pursue it in a heartbeat. Multiple people around me have made that choice and benefited by birthing their child and are now beyond glad they decided against this abortion. If you want an example of this, look up the birth of Tim Tebow. One becomes a mother at conception.

If I was in a situation like this, I would want to do everything in my power to survive. I would want to survive for my friends and family. I would want to survive for all of my loved ones, because I know how much it hurts to lose someone too soon. So yes, I would have an abortion if it meant that I would live to see another day.

I would not let myself die because there might be a chance that my fetus could be brought to term. I am not willing to die for that. Call me selfish, I don’t care.

You have no respect for people. The only thing you care about is the fetus. A potential person. Not the real person who could be standing right in front of you, dying because their pregnancy is literally killing them.

(By the way, Tim Tebow’s mother is the exception, not the rule. I suggest you look up Savita Halappanavar, one of the countless people who have died from being denied abortion care.)

"If you’re pregnant you should be willing to put yourself through sheer agony and the possibility of a painful death because the fetus in you is far more important than your life, even if the chances of the fetus living outside your body are pretty much null."

What a fucking selfish way to think.

(Just your daily reminder that the prolife movement is actually probirth. Even if it means the death of a born person and suffering for their born children, they do not care. In the least.) 

Piece of shit prolifer

This is one of my favorite things put out by the Guttmacher Institute. It really dispels the whole “only irresponsible teens need abortions” thing.

youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold youcanbmypajamas:

This writing is gold