the female body is hardcore as fuck. 

Yes is it.

so is the male body

it’s sad to see so many people like this on this website

OP is praising the fact that women hold a fucking infant in their belly the size of a ribcage, get the fuck over yourself for 3.5 seconds.

*~*~follow for more fragile male ego~*~*

The male body is more susceptible to hereditary diseases because of their lack of a second X chromosome. Their testosterone production ages them faster and causes them to die sooner. Their center of gravity is higher because of their tiny little hips and overgrown shoulders, making them easier to topple. Their gonads are placed outside of the body, in a very vulnerable position, because they do not function properly if they get a little bit warmer than usual. They have non-functional nipples, but still enough breast tissue to get cancer.

The male body is not hardcore. The male body is to the female body what a shoddy, unstable mod is to a well-estabilished piece of software. Sit the fuck down. And try to not crush your fragile pathetic outside gonads when you do it.

Anonymous said:

are hijabis really able to be proper feminists?


This is a really loaded ask packed with many dangerous presumptions, so I hope you weren’t expecting a simple yes or no. Also, before I even answer this (essentially insulting) question, it bears making the following disclaimers.

First, I don’t like the term hijabi deployed in most contexts, especially with regards to feminism, because it creates this insidious isolation of an entire demographic. Let us not pathologize human beings in such a way. Only a bigoted fool would honestly believe that by the virtue of practicing Islam and wearing a headscarf could a vast myriad of women from different political backgrounds, races/nationalities, social environments, economic brackets and their thoughts about women’s liberation be compiled under such a homogenous label. Ironically, attempting to validate such a stigmatization of millions of women itself is a decidedly anti feminist and fundamentally misogynistic act. (For the record, if a woman who wears hijab refers to herself as such, that’s entirely her right, but that’s not a title that should be imposed on her, which was done here).

Secondly, the idea that any woman has to unconditionally identify with feminism as a structure to prove herself credible is stifling and harmful. There are many justifications for women, especially women who are marginalized racially or by heteronormative standards not to identify with American mainstream feminism (which is generally understood as the three waves of feminism and were/are transparently flawed). For example, the formation of second wave feminism was so white centered and racially alienating that it provided as part of the reason Black American women created womanism, which aligned itself more with intersectionality. But for argument’s sake, I’ll assume by “feminist”, you mean general euphemism for women who are principled in their analysis and approaches to gendered oppression.

I have to wonder what your idea of a “proper” feminist must be if Muslim women who wear the hijab are actively alienated from it. Honestly, ask yourself. Because you didn’t say Muslim women as a whole, so is it the concept of veiling that perturbs you? Or perhaps you didn’t know that there are Muslim women who don’t wear the hijab? But then it seems to be only Muslim women who observe head scarves that you make a point to interrogate, because there are women of different faiths outside of Islam that don a veil and yet, they are not speculated about in the same manner.

It sounds to me that there two possible outcomes to have resulted in this question.

One, you might believe that women who wear the hijab do so in spite of other women and perpetually sneer at those who are understood as dressing “provocatively”. To your apparent dismay, there are hijab wearing Muslim women who regard their clothing choices as a personal act and do not wish to impose it on others. Simultaneously, there are liberal feminists (FEMEN and less extreme variations) that believe that publicly embracing sexuality and viewing it as a means of liberation (which is patently false and not to mention, alienates women who not wish to be open about sexuality in such a manner) who are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they consider covering up (especially and at times, primarily in the context of Islam) to be an innate form of oppression and subsequently anti feminist. This is not only incorrect, it lends way to legitimizing racism and Islamophobia as a feminist stance, which leads to my following point.

Two, you could believe that by the virtue of observing the hijab, a woman is so oppressed that she cannot possibly be in the position to have profound feminist views and praxis. This assumption occurs under a presupposed mythical conditional misogyny and a singular form of oppression. This stance, by its very core obscures the nature of sexism. To assume this line of thinking is to deliberately erase the oppression faced by women in so called “sexually liberated” spaces and locations. Whether it be pornography where rape and abuse have become nearly indistinguishable from the act of sex itself and the objectification of women’s bodies normalized or the proliferation of rape culture where a woman dressing in a particular fashion becomes the topic of speculation, rather than the commonality of sexual assault itself, women are scrutinized. By your own logic, women who have been subjected to the worst forms of misogynistic violence would not be credible voices either, but of course, you know better than that.

What seems to be lost on you, however is that women are a second class in almost every viable sector in most societies. Say it with me- patriarchy is a global force. This is by no turn the oppression faced by women into a uniformity, devoid of nuance by class, race, geopolitics and so forth. And neither would I ever deny the very specific narratives of women who wear the hijab (especially in a post 9/11 state where they’re so visibly Muslim- a narrative that I can’t speak about and won’t encroach upon). But my ultimate purpose is to reiterate that misogyny and hardship faced by women is indeed almost unanimously understood (there are only a small sector of women whose lives are made so comfortable by their other sociopolitical and economic privileges that they can evade the fundamental struggle of womanhood).

Pontification about the hijab is useless and demonizing. By questioning the legitimacy of millions of women’s political views and the how they can improve the lives of themselves and their fellow women by such an arbitrary standard is pompous navel gazing. So, tldr, to answer your very trite and unyieldingly orientalistic question “can a hijabi be a proper feminist?” Yes. And no. It depends on the views they hold, ways they enact such views and if they feel comfortable associating with the term feminism. Just like another classification of woman.


100 Beautiful and Ugly Words

by Mark Nichol

One of the many fascinating features of our language is how often words with pleasant associations are also quite pleasing on the tongue and even to the eye, and how many words, by contrast, acoustically and visually corroborate their disagreeable nature — look no further than the heading for this post.
Enrich the poetry of your prose by applying words that provide precise connotation while also evoking emotional responses

Beautiful Words

  • Amorphous: indefinite, shapeless
  • Beguile: deceive
  • Caprice: impulse
  • Cascade: steep waterfall
  • Cashmere: fine, delicate wool
  • Chrysalis: protective covering
  • Cinnamon: an aromatic spice; its soft brown color
  • Coalesce: unite, or fuse
  • Crepuscular: dim, or twilit
  • Crystalline: clear, or sparkling
  • Desultory: half-hearted, meandering
  • Diaphanous: gauzy
  • Dulcet: sweet
  • Ebullient: enthusiastic
  • Effervescent: bubbly
  • Elision: omission
  • Enchanted: charmed
  • Encompass: surround
  • Enrapture: delighted
  • Ephemeral: fleeting
  • Epiphany: revelation
  • Epitome: embodiment of the ideal
  • Ethereal: celestial, unworldly, immaterial
  • Etiquette: proper conduct
  • Evanescent: fleeting
  • Evocative: suggestive
  • Exuberant: abundant, unrestrained, outsize
  • Felicity: happiness, pleasantness
  • Filament: thread, strand
  • Halcyon: care-free
  • Idyllic: contentedly pleasing
  • Incorporeal: without form
  • Incandescent: glowing, radiant, brilliant, zealous
  • Ineffable: indescribable, unspeakable
  • Inexorable: relentless
  • Insouciance: nonchalance
  • Iridescent: luster
  • Languid: slow, listless
  • Lassitude: fatigue
  • Lilt: cheerful or buoyant song or movement
  • Lithe: flexible, graceful
  • Lullaby: soothing song
  • Luminescence: dim chemical or organic light
  • Mellifluous: smooth, sweet
  • Mist: cloudy moisture, or similar literal or virtual obstacle
  • Murmur: soothing sound
  • Myriad: great number
  • Nebulous: indistinct
  • Opulent: ostentatious
  • Penumbra: shade, shroud, fringe
  • Plethora: abundance
  • Quiescent: peaceful
  • Quintessential: most purely representative or typical
  • Radiant: glowing
  • Redolent: aromatic, evocative
  • Resonant: echoing, evocative
  • Resplendent: shining
  • Rhapsodic: intensely emotional
  • Sapphire: rich, deep bluish purple
  • Scintilla: trace
  • Serendipitous: chance
  • Serene: peaceful
  • Somnolent: drowsy, sleep inducing
  • Sonorous: loud, impressive, imposing
  • Spherical: ball-like, globular
  • Sublime: exalted, transcendent
  • Succulent: juicy, tasty, rich
  • Suffuse: flushed, full
  • Susurration: whispering
  • Symphony: harmonious assemblage
  • Talisman: charm, magical device
  • Tessellated: checkered in pattern
  • Tranquility: peacefulness
  • Vestige: trace
  • Zenith: highest point

Ugly Words

  • Cacophony: confused noise
  • Cataclysm: flood, catastrophe, upheaval
  • Chafe: irritate, abrade
  • Coarse: common, crude, rough, harsh
  • Cynical: distrustful, self-interested
  • Decrepit: worn-out, run-down
  • Disgust: aversion, distaste
  • Grimace: expression of disgust or pain
  • Grotesque: distorted, bizarre
  • Harangue: rant
  • Hirsute: hairy
  • Hoarse: harsh, grating
  • Leech: parasite,
  • Maladroit: clumsy
  • Mediocre: ordinary, of low quality
  • Obstreperous: noisy, unruly
  • Rancid: offensive, smelly
  • Repugnant: distasteful
  • Repulsive: disgusting
  • Shriek: sharp, screeching sound
  • Shrill: high-pitched sound
  • Shun: avoid, ostracize
  • Slaughter: butcher, carnage
  • Unctuous: smug, ingratiating
  • Visceral: crude, anatomically graphic

Notice how often attractive words present themselves to define other beautiful ones, and note also how many of them are interrelated, and what kind of sensations, impressions, and emotions they have in common. Also, try enunciating beautiful words as if they were ugly, or vice versa. Are their sounds suggestive of their quality, or does their meaning wholly determine their effect on us?

By Mark Nichol

Source for Article 

Source for Image



People are so cool when you get the skin of them

Weird and cool!!

I wouldn’t necessarily mind people not knowing I’m gay, but I don’t like being thought of as straight — in the same way that I don’t mind people not knowing I’m a writer, but it would be awkward if they assumed I was an extreme skateboarder, because that’s so far removed from the reality of my life. But there is no blank slate where orientation is concerned; we are straight until proven otherwise. And if you’ve never seen how dramatically a conversation can be derailed by a casual admission of homosexuality, let me tell you, it gets awkward.
Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one.
Leon Festinger (via intellectuss)    


Great Minds: Mary Anning, “The Greatest Fossilist in the World”

Learn about Mary Anning, one of England’s most important contributors to the field of paleontology (and check out our entire playlist of Great Minds episodes!). 

A woman who hates you is playing the pianoforte.

You have five hundred a year. From who? Five hundred what? No one knows. No one cares. You have it. It’s yours. Every year. All five hundred of it.

A charming man attempts to flirt with you. This is terrible.

You are in a garden, and you are astonished.

How To Tell If You Are In A Jane Austen Novel (via mustangscullaaay)

I’m furious that I didn’t write this.

(via inlovewiththepractice)

Menstrual pads have been mentioned as early as the 10th century, in the Suda, where Hypatia, who lived in the 4th century AD, was said to have thrown one of her used menstrual rags at an admirer in an attempt to discourage him

if you don’t think history is a truly inspiring subject you’re wrong (via fashiondisastercecil)

I have to add, this wasn’t just a case of a pretty woman got advanced on by a man she didn’t want. He wasn’t just an admirer. He was her student. She was a master at mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy. She had popular public lectures.

And she wasn’t just said to throw her menstrual rags at him. The story I read was that he admitted his admiration in the middle of one of her teachings, and she grabbed her menstrual rags right out from in between her legs, hurled it at him, and told him “This is what you really love, my young man, but you do not love beauty for its own sake.” 

It wasn’t just an attempt to discourage him. It was teaching him a lesson, even when he was interrupting hers.

Basically, Hypatia was amazing.

(via skaldadottir)



Reading Women (2012 - 2013), Carrie Schneider

  1. Rena reading Zadie Smith, Megha reading Edith Wharton.
  2. Flávia reading Clarice Lispector, Bianca reading Sylvia Plath.
  3. Evan reading Anne Lamott, Aura reading Maarit Verronen.
  4. Sara reading Miranda July, Sheree reading Angela Carter.
  5. Hsiao-Jou reading Fang-Yi Sheu, Heather reading Chris Kraus.
  6. Cauleen reading Gwendolyn Brooks, Molly reading Roseanne Barr.
  7. Sarah reading Zora Neale Hurston, Vicky reading Gloria Fuertes.
  8. Alyssa reading Patti Smith, Yala reading Susan Sontag.
  9. Whitney reading Terry Tempest Williams, Naomi reading Adrian Piper.
  10. Kelly reading Gabrielle Hamilton, Amy reading Michelle Cliff.