Tuesday, March 4, 2014
that-liberal-cunt:

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.

daaaayum

Re-blogging for the commentary, and I’d like to add: In the car scenario, I’m pretty sure if the said, only person in the world who can donate blood, even if they were the driver and the accident was their fault, they still couldn’t be forced to give blood.

that-liberal-cunt:

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.

daaaayum

Re-blogging for the commentary, and I’d like to add: In the car scenario, I’m pretty sure if the said, only person in the world who can donate blood, even if they were the driver and the accident was their fault, they still couldn’t be forced to give blood.

Sunday, March 2, 2014
todayinlaborhistory:

Today in labor history, March 2, 1990: 6,000 Greyhound bus drivers go on strike over wages and job security. The company hired 3,000 scabs to permanently replace the striking workers, declared the strike over two months later, and filed for bankruptcy in June. In 1993, Greyhound agreed to rehire 550 striking drivers, paying them $22 million in back pay.

todayinlaborhistory:

Today in labor history, March 2, 1990: 6,000 Greyhound bus drivers go on strike over wages and job security. The company hired 3,000 scabs to permanently replace the striking workers, declared the strike over two months later, and filed for bankruptcy in June. In 1993, Greyhound agreed to rehire 550 striking drivers, paying them $22 million in back pay.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Saturday, January 18, 2014

anarcho-queer:

thornsandwillows:

anarcho-queer:

U.S. Accuses Wal-Mart of Labor Violations & Anonymous Leaks Internal Anti-Union Documents

The National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency tasked with policing bad behavior by employers, is targeting Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over the retail behemoth’s alleged crackdown on its protesting workers.

The complaint, the largest ever against Walmart, refers to charges made in November 2012 during the Black Friday actions by associates speaking out for respect on the job, regular hours and a living wage of $25,000 a year. The complaint alleges Walmart illegally fired and disciplined nearly 70 workers in 34 stores in 14 states for rallying over workplace conditions.

The rallies spread to 100 cities. Nineteen employees were discharged from the company, allegedly as a reprimand for their involvement in the rallies, according to the NLRB.

Wal-Mart is accused of warning its employees of punishment in two news broadcasts televised nationally as well as in statements to Texas and California store employees.

The agency, echoing its November findings, also said that the retailer preemptively threatened, surveilled or lashed out at employees before expected labor activities in California, Florida, Missouri and Texas.

The case is set to go before an administrative law judge on an undetermined hearing date. Wal-Mart has until Jan. 28 to respond.

Making Change at Walmart reported in a press release:

If Walmart is found liable, workers could be awarded back pay, reinstatement and the reversal of disciplinary actions through the decision; and Walmart could be required to inform and educate all employees of their legally protected rights. While historic, the complaint alone is not enough to stop Walmart from violating the law. Since the start of the year, Walmart has continued to retaliate against workers who speak out for better jobs. 

In other news, the Internet group Anonymous leaked a set of Walmart PowerPoints (bottom photos) for managers that included ways to discourage workers from joining a union and how to identify “early warning signs.”

Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, confirmed the documents are Walmart’s and said they’ve been around for a while.

The PowerPoints also detailed legal ways an employer could discourage workers from organizing (click photo’s for caption).

When I came in for orientation at Walmart, our instructor told us that we would be watching a video on “protecting our signature.” I thought it would be something regarding identity theft. Rather, the whole video was anti-union propaganda. This was the first thing they showed us. Before any job training, company policy, or the like, we were told how evil unions were.

At least two other bloggers (cravingsolace & lemonthyme) have reblogged this post claiming that the Wal-Mart’s they were hired at showed the same anti-union video or were told that “any talk of unions or especially trying to form a union was grounds for termination.

If you currently work at Wal-Mart and you feel that your right’s as a worker has been violated or that the anti-union campaign has discouraged you from organizing labor activities or forming a union, consider making a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and contact Our Walmart for legal advice and support. 

To All Workers: 

Learn your rights as an employee, including protected labor activities (which expand to non-unionized workers as well). 

Saturday, January 11, 2014
blamethe1st:

Really? You mean to tell me it’s contradictory to believe that the globe is “warming” when we’re suffering through record low temperatures? I mean, Niagara Falls just froze over for the first time within 100 years! How can anyone seriously argue that the climate is warming in the face of evidence like that?

Because of careful scientific study of the circumstances instead of blindly jumping to conclusions. Isn’t a little bit odd that it warmed up first, then jumped so low, sending very strong cold winds our way, then warmed back up to average temperatures? Now, you’d have a point if it slowly climbed to 9 degrees and stayed there, which would indicate that our average temperatures this winter are going to be colder. However, it was pretty damn sudden 60 to 9 in the course of a day is not normal, something is clearly up. in fact, its almost like the cold air is coming elsewhere. 
The circulation of cold air around the poles normally stays in the arctic (meteorologists have been aware of this phenomenon for a century now), but the rising temperatures of arctics is making that storm buckle a bit. it’s like the opposite of a hurricane, colder air keeps it stable. When it buckled from rising arctic temperatures (hey! global warming), it sent strong cold currents down our way. We’re not finished yet though, pony boy. This polar vortex actually effects the jet-streams that send warm air around the world, like parts of Ireland that stay close to 60 degrees year round. So, that jet-stream came by us first, before the cold air hit us, which is why Monday morning was unusually warm.

blamethe1st:

Really? You mean to tell me it’s contradictory to believe that the globe is “warming” when we’re suffering through record low temperatures? I mean, Niagara Falls just froze over for the first time within 100 years! How can anyone seriously argue that the climate is warming in the face of evidence like that?

Because of careful scientific study of the circumstances instead of blindly jumping to conclusions. Isn’t a little bit odd that it warmed up first, then jumped so low, sending very strong cold winds our way, then warmed back up to average temperatures? Now, you’d have a point if it slowly climbed to 9 degrees and stayed there, which would indicate that our average temperatures this winter are going to be colder. However, it was pretty damn sudden 60 to 9 in the course of a day is not normal, something is clearly up. in fact, its almost like the cold air is coming elsewhere. 

The circulation of cold air around the poles normally stays in the arctic (meteorologists have been aware of this phenomenon for a century now), but the rising temperatures of arctics is making that storm buckle a bit. it’s like the opposite of a hurricane, colder air keeps it stable. When it buckled from rising arctic temperatures (hey! global warming), it sent strong cold currents down our way. We’re not finished yet though, pony boy. This polar vortex actually effects the jet-streams that send warm air around the world, like parts of Ireland that stay close to 60 degrees year round. So, that jet-stream came by us first, before the cold air hit us, which is why Monday morning was unusually warm.

(Source: cagle.com)

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

It’s cold because it’s hot. the record lows and global warming

This is for all the idiots making the “it’s cold therefore global warming is stupid” argument. The rising arctic temperatures cause a rise in pressure, and weakening the polar vortex, making it expand into lower latitudes, causing the cold outbreak we are experiencing. Ironically, it’s cold because it’s hot. Basically, we are actually seeing the beginning stages of our climate about to break. The record low temperatures should worry you about global warming.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Painful Irony

blamethe1st:

yestwasi:

blamethe1st:

yestwasi:

blamethe1st:

When a feminist or SJW lectures to you that hurt feelings do not equal oppression.

No duh, Sherlock! We’ve been telling you that all along!

Okay, then tell me, what is oppression?

Not having the same legal rights as anyone else. That is what is considered by most to being a second-class citizen.

So you’re claiming that women have all the same legal rights as men?

Name one legal right that women are denied but men have.

lets look at this in a defacto sense. as it how it plays out in reality (because as we all know, everything that looks good on paper, must work great in reality). I’ve met a lot of women over the years who have come out that they were raped years ago, it’s actually scary common. Most of them didn’t report it out of fear, the one’s who did, were either threatened, or the police dropped their case. Just think about the Maryville rape story, it took anonymous just to get the case looked at, and even then, the media cried over the boy’s not getting to play football, instead of any concern the damage done to that girl.

Also, look at wages, women get paid, on average 80% less then men for the same job and training, it gets even worse when comparing a woman of color to a white man. 14% of jobs in S.T.E.M. fields are occupied by women. Now, if this was a 45-55 or even 40-60 ratio, then you could make a case that there isn’t something deterring women from going into those fields, but that statistic shows there is something seriously fucked up. 

so, there are a few things to consider. I can list more if you like.

blamethe1st:

I don’t think I could reduce feminism to a strawman argument if I wanted to. How could you make it any more simplistic, infantile, and wrong than it already and actually is?

nice job not making a single argument against feminism man. Just a random pot shot that doesn’t prove jack shit. You know I ain’t going to let you get away with anything on Tumblr either. I’m not just on DA.