thewomanfromitaly:

fandomsandfeminism:

manic-satanic:

I just saw a post that said “Abolish gender ROLES not gender IDENTITY”

I cannot even fathom how absurd this is

Please explain to me what gender identity is, because I’m pretty fucking sure it has everything to do with what gender role you “identify” as

If there are no gender roles then there is no gender identity. You can’t do one and not the other

No. 

I’m a woman. That’s my gender identity. 

However, I reject traditional feminine gender roles: cooking, cleaning, wanting to be a housewife, deferring to men, being passive to men. 

Gender ROLES are a prescribed set of behaviors and traits deemed *Acceptable* for someone of a gender to display. Gender identity is what gender you are- regardless of what trait and behaviors you display and how those traits and behaviors are traditionally coded. 

OP has some thinking to do.

I feel like gender identity really becomes an empty label, when there are no societal expectations placed on it. Gender is a social construct - so how can you have a construct when nothing is constructed around the nominal labels “man” and “woman.” 

919 notes

tigerator:

as an autistic person

having autoplay on your blog is disruptive and startling. it bombards me with something that’s 90% of the time completely unfamiliar and often overlaps with what i’m listening to in the first place, without any warning whatsoever. it catches me offguard and…

This seems a bit weird to me. The internet is like going out in public; you can’t control what other people are going to do. If I was deathly afraid of blue shirts, I wouldn’t be able to go in public and ask people not to wear blue shirts. Similarly, a person’s blog is their blog. If you know you might have a problem with something you might find on someone’s blog, doesn’t it make more sense for you to get a Browser extension or just turn your sound off. I mean if it’s your friends blog, that’s one thing, but come on.

20,217 notes

Anonymous asked: Do you think every rapist (regardless if they were on drugs or are clearly mentally ill) should be locked up forever? I am really concerned about letting someone like that out of prison ever again, but my girlfriend says she thinks locking someone mentally ill up forever is cruel, and told me my own experiences with it cloud my judgement and make me too 'emotionally invested' in the topic. The (20 year old) man who raped me will be free in 10 years, and just thinking about that makes me so sick.

awomanfromitaly:

misandry-mermaid:

It’s really ableist for her to assume that the majority of rapists are mentally ill, or that mental illness causes them to rape.

Rape culture and patriarchy that allows men to grow up seeing women as lesser beings and thinking they are entitled to our bodies is what causes them to rape.

The number of rapists whose mental illness actually caused them to rape people is probably a TINY percentage, and if they really are that dangerous, they should be kept away from the general population until they receive counseling and help that makes them unlikely to hurt people.

The fact is, rape is violence, and yet every other violent crime sees higher conviction rates and sentence lengths than rape.  We give drug addicts who get caught in possession of drugs longer sentences than rapists (especially PoC).  We give internet hackers longer sentences than convicted rapists.  There is no way rape is an over-punished crime when only 3% of rapists even see one day in prison.

We give drug addicts who get caught in possession of drugs longer sentences than rapists (especially PoC).  We give internet hackers longer sentences than convicted rapists.”


IMPORTANT

I feel like misandry-mermaid didn’t carefully read the OP. I didn’t get the impression that the OP thought that “the majority of rapists are mentally ill”, but was in fact asking whether all rapists regardless of mental state at the time of the rape should be locked up forever (with no claim about what percentage of rapists have such mental illnesses.) That’s a different question altogether.  That’s the same question as, should a murderer who had a mental illness that left them unable to understand what they were doing get a looser sentence? It’s asking what would be a just punishment for a violent crime committed by certain people, without referencing just how common such people might be.

Otherwise, misandry-mermaid is correct. Although some of the reason rape sentences are shorter than drug sentences is due to oversentencing on the drug side, and not just undersentencing on the rape side.

142 notes

Science is not about “facts”

unicycles:

windycitydreamer:

So, don’t tell me that you prefer science over religion or whatever else because it’s “real” or “concrete.”

For every scientific study, there are 20 studies refuting it. For every scientific theory, there are 100 other theories explaining the same phenomenon. For every scientist saying one thing, there are THOUSANDS of scientists who say another about the same thing.

There is no such thing as “better” facts. There is no hierarchy of reality. There can only be one reality. Just because most scientists say something, or even some scientists say something, that means nothing if other scientists disagree. There is still doubt.

Therefore, the fact that science cannot provide a single unanimous fact when it comes to the questions answered by religion makes it ridiculous for someone to say it provides concrete answers where religion supposedly does not.

I’ve blogged about this before, but it’s important. Some people really don’t understand that science is a social activity — it’s not 100% concrete evidence, it’s just agreed upon ‘truths’. 

It seems to be a bit wrong-headed to say this though. Science is about modeling reality, and it has done a very good job of doing this, If our models didn’t correspond to the underlying reality, GPS wouldn’t work, computers wouldn’t work, etc. Science is a social activity, but there are safeguards built into it to make it so that all of our models tend to evolve and eventually better reflect reality.

I disagree with the OP that if any scientist offers a dissenting opinion then that totally negates scientific consensus. Of course there is only one reality, but there are many competing models of reality, and science is all about finding the best model for a given application. For example, modern physics offers models which correspond to reality more frequently than Newtonian physics, but the latter is still useful because in many instances it models reality very well and takes less work to calculate.

Religions on the other hand offer only one model and assert that this model is THE model of reality. And unfortunately, these models are often incomplete or ambiguous, and religions do not succeed at replicating the evolutionary process by which scientific models come to better reflect reality. As an explanation of the natural world, religions fail to offer a viable alternative to science. That doesn’t mean science is a complete alternative to religion; it only answers the ”what,” if you want the “why” you still need to fall back to philosophy or religion.

23 notes

korranation:

HERE’S OUR BIG NEWS, STRAIGHT FROM JANET VARNEY! IF THIS POST GETS REBLOGGED 10,000 TIMES IN THE NEXT 12 HOURS, WE’LL RELEASE THE 1 HOUR BOOK 2 FINALE TONIGHT AT MIDNIGHT EST ON NICK.COM!

No, seriously. Pick your jaw up off the floor! Catch “Night of A Thousand Stars” and “Harmonic Convergence” tonight at 8/7c on Nick…and then unlock the Book 2 finale episodes “Darkness Falls” and “Light in the Dark” online at midnight EST!

Let’s do this thing, Korra Nation!

22,832 notes

gracelesscastiels:

today i met a christian guy who tries to follow the rules of the bible really good and i asked him if he is against gays because of Leviticus 20:13 and he told me no, he doesn’t because of Matthew 7

image

and he added that he would never judge anybody on their believes or way of living because only god can judge the people

this guy man

So, if this guy ignores terrible rules about stoning gays, because that is contradicted later in his holy book, that makes him a good person?

(Source: wendiggo)

290,022 notes

hellenisticchristendom:

loveforalamb:

seekingmybeloved:

captainvatican:

ilovegodaboveall:

GOD’s NOT Dead, He’s surely ALIVE. He’s living on the inside roaring like a Lion. GOD’S NOT DEAD!

He is GOD with or without you. He is God, that’s just the way it is!

AHHHHHHH

A movie about apologetics.

It’s about darn time. :D

This is exciting! 

I have my doubts that the move will be by any means substantive. No Christian with little or no experience in philosophy just trumps his atheist philosophy professor. Of course, I’d have to see the movie to make my judgement. But, someone’s position is going to get straw manned. 

1,977 notes

soapyboxen:

landoftheway:

If morality is truly objective, how does one measure it? Remember, something objective is something that does not arbitrarily change based upon the perceptions and interpretations of observers; it is something factually true for all of reality. So again,…

1. I’m not sure that poses a major problem to this argument. Lets say that everyone had a desire for ice cream, would the fact that the specific ice creams they wanted were different make the ice cream acquiring strategy significantly different for society? It might change the logistics of the situation, but by and large it would not change what needs to be done.

2. This sort of reasoning is called a hypothetical imperative. I’m not sure how I would respond to someone who didn’t think we should act in a manner that is most likely to achieve a specific goal. Whatever system they adhered to which told them that would not be a rational one, whatever it is.
It’d be like a student responding to a professor’s advice that “if you want to do get a degree l, you should study” with “I deny any rational connection between the acts of studying and getting a degree.” It’s true that the two aren’t necessarily connected, but studying is generally the best strategy of achieving the goal of a degree.

3. I think the fact that people want these things only for certain people weakens but does not eliminate this form of morality. No one can achieve happiness and health in a vacuum. If I want persons A, B and C to be happy and health and you want persons D, E and F to be happy and healthy, we both still need a societal network in order to make all that possible. At the very least, society needs to be able to produce doctors, food, drinkable water, entertainment, etc.
If I act in a way that destroys this societal network, I am only indirectly hurting A, B and C’s chances of being happy and health, so it makes sense for me to behave in pro-social (i.e. moral) ways.

4. The objectiveness comes from what morality actually is. On my view, morality is a “science” for discovering those actions most likely to satisfy the desire for happiness and health that humans have. It is objective in the same way that medicine is. Medicine tells you the objectively best ways to achieve health, regardless of whether you personally value health or not. Morality tells you the objectively best ways to achieve happiness and health, regardless of whether you personally value happiness and health or not.

5 notes