one of the funniest things about the “kids are exposed to too much violence nowadays” arguments
is that people literally used to be executed in the town square and entire families would go out to watch these people be killed and it was a huge event and people thought it was great fun
When Stuyvesant says that women’s dress and bodies are distraction in a learning environment, for example, what they’re really saying is that they’re distracting to male students. The default student we are concerned about - the student whose learning we want to ensure is protected - is male. Never mind how “distracting” it is to be pulled from class, humiliated, and made to change outfits - publicly degrading young women is small price to pay to make sure that a boy doesn’t have to suffer through the momentary distraction of glancing at a girl’s legs. When this dentist in Iowa can fire his assistant for turning him on - even though she’s done absolutely nothing wrong - the message again is that it’s men’s ability to work that’s important.
And when rape victims are blamed for the crime committed against them, the message is the same: This is something that happened to the perpetrator, who was driven to assault by a skirt, or a date, or the oh-so-sexy invitation of being passed out drunk. Women have infringed on their right to exist without being turned on. (Ta-Nehisi Coates describes this centering of male sexual vulnerability quite well.) Our very presence is a disruption of the male status quo.—From my latest at The Nation, “Asking For It” (via absolutematriarchy)
In response to that Damon Lindelof post that came across my dash this weekend, I wrote this. Basically, I’m sick of the assumption that women don’t like sci-fi.
In pop culture, girls who crush hopelessly on guys they can’t have are painted as just that – hopeless. Over and over again, we’re taught that girls who openly express sexual or romantic interest in guys who don’t want them are pitiable, stalkerish, desperate, crazy bitches. More often than not, they’re also portrayed as ugly – whether physically, emotionally or both – in order to further establish their undesirability as an objective fact. Both narratively and, as a consequence, in real life, men are given free reign to snub, abuse, mislead and talk down to such women: we’re raised to believe that female desire is unseemly, so that any consequent shaming is therefore deserved. There is no female-equivalent Friend Zone terminology because, in the language of our culture, a man’s romantic choices are considered sacrosanct and inviolable. If a girl has been told no, then she has only herself to blame for anything that happens next – but if a woman says no, then she must not really mean it. Or, if she does, she shouldn’t: the rejected man is a universally sympathetic figure, and everyone from moviegoers to platonic onlookers will scream at her to just give him a chance, as though her rejection must always be unfounded rather than based on the fact that he had a chance, and blew it. And even then, give him another one! The pathos of Single Nice Guys can only be eased by pity-sex with unwilling women that blossoms into romance!
This is Seventeen Magazine’s BMI Chart. Take a moment to read it.
I am almost 18 years old. According to this BMI chart, I would be healthy between the BMI of 14.8 - 21.7.
Excuse me? Since when is a BMI of 14.8 considered healthy? Not even the smallest-boned of people should be at a BMI of 14.8 when they are 18 years old. To put that into perspective for you - I am 5 foot, 3 inches tall. To even be considered “underweight” on this BMI chart, I would need to weigh under 83 pounds. And if I weighed more than 122 pounds, I would be considered overweight.
Does that sound fucked up to anyone else, or is it just me?
With this sick and screwed-up BMI calculator, Seventeen Magazine is essentially encouraging their readers, mostly teenage girls (the population most at risk for developing an eating disorder) to maintain extremely low weights. How would you feel if you were 123 pounds and 5’3, calculated your BMI, and saw that you were overweight at a perfectly medically healthy BMI of 21.8?
I will be writing a strongly worded email to the editor of Seventeen Magazine to express my anger towards this issue as someone who has struggled with poor body image and anorexia nervosa.
Please, if you feel the way I do - indignant, furious, sick to your stomach - reblog this. Seventeen Magazine will not get away with encouraging body hatred and unhealthy weight goals.
This is absolutely horrifying.
I do not have strong enough words for this.
What issue is this from?
I will also be writing a strongly worded letter to Seventeen.
This is not acceptable.
Is Seventeen magazine out of their fucking mind?
Wow I want to stab someone in the face. I thought this was fake but its real.
wow what the FUCK are you doing Seventeen magazine. what the flying fuck. i’m actually furious.
I’m 5’8”, and if I had a BMR of 14.8 I would be at 95 and a half pounds. INSANE.
I know this is not what I normally post on this blog but it needs a signal boost. This magazine is promoting unsafely low weight to teenagers, who are most susceptible to eating disorders. The bmi to be diagnosed with anorexia is 17.5. Please take time to send an angry email to firstname.lastname@example.org to complain about this. I will even post my email i’m writing them if you want to send the same one. This needs to be addressed.
This is saying to my sixteen year old sister that at ninety pounds she would be considered healthy.
What the fuck.
Cat-Friend vs. Dog-Friend
> If your friends acted like your pets, you probably wouldn’t keep them around for long.
Holy shit so true
omg this is the funniest thing ive ever seen in my life
Jada Pinkett-Smith is aware of the critics that frown up their noses at the way she raises her daughter, Willow. Willow cuts, dyes and styles her hair as she pleases, a fact that bothers many who feel girls shouldn’t have that much control over their appearance at such a young age.
Jada decided to address the criticism in a Facebook post:
“A letter to a friend…This subject is old but I have never answered it in its entirety. And even with this post it will remain incomplete. The question why I would LET Willow cut her hair. First the LET must be challenged. This is a world where women, girls are constantly reminded that they don’t belong to themselves; that their bodies are not their own, nor their power or self determination. I made a promise to endow my little girl with the power to always know that her body, spirit and her mind are HER domain. Willow cut her hair because her beauty, her value, her worth is not measured by the length of her hair. It’s also a statement that claims that even little girls have the RIGHT to own themselves and should not be a slave to even their mother’s deepest insecurities, hopes and desires. Even little girls should not be a slave to the preconceived ideas of what a culture believes a little girl should be.”