Anonymous asked:

Do you think it's bullshit that we have to pay for people's birth control and abortions with the HHS mandate?

answered:

I’m starting to get annoyed with not having the freedom to choose where the money I earned is going. I also don’t think it’s fair to have the government force private businesses to pay for these things that go against their morals (like in the case of Hobby Lobby). It’s not the government’s job to decide what is moral and what isn’t; that’s subjective and personal. You shouldn’t be forced to have to abandon your morals just because you want to start your own business. I don’t think the government has the right to force people to pay for things that go against their principles. That’s overstepping its bounds. (I’m starting to agree more with the Libertarian point of view on this)

jehovah’s witnesses are morally opposed to blood transfusions. so why should they have to pay for your emergency surgery?

i don’t really believe in war, so, should i get to have my money not allocated towards that?

hell, if i have a moral opposition to organized religion, what impact should that have on churches’ tax breaks?

what about the people who have a moral opposition to taxes? are they off the hook entirely?

how do you prove that someone “actually” holds some moral? if it’s possible to get out of taxes just because you don’t believe in them, what stops everyone in the whole country from using the same argument?

i notice hobby lobby is based in oklahoma, which led the country in capital punishment per capita until just a couple years ago. where do you think the money for all those government-sanctioned murders came from?

also lol at complaining about birth control. did we already forget that thing about how medicare spent $172 million on penis pumps in six years, or that even a decade ago, new york alone was spending $6 million a year on viagra? so it’s fine to spend hundreds of millions to help men have sex, but not women. (who do you think the women on birth control are having sex with, praytell?)

surprise, the right to hold your morals ends approximately where others’ rights begin, and the government has decided that women have the right to abortion and people have the right to health care. (well, sort of.)

addendum: presumably hobby lobby buys products and supplies and services from other companies, who presumably have employees, who presumably have health insurance. do they have a problem with that, i wonder?

Anonymous asked:

I really like how diverse and how many girl characters you have in your story!! It's really nice to see girl characters who don't have any feminine traits about them and still be female! And male characters that don't have anything specifically masculine about them either!! I really like more androgynous character designs and flora makes me happy to see a lot of those

floraverse answered:

Marl: It’s cool you like it! I view gender as primarily (perhaps even completely) a man-made social construct, so it wouldn’t make sense to have those constructs exist in a world where humans don’t exist.

man it is really exciting when people make comments about this specifically

Anonymous asked:

Let me put it into terms that may help you may understand: patriarchy is the API through which men organize and access female bodies and resources (like carework), and "Woman" is the wrapper class around female people to make the whole thing work. The class tree is called "gender" and the (social) constructor funcs are called "gender socialization". Men who self-assign member functions and variables expected of "Women" are still male, and creating a new class tree does not solve the old one.

don’t worry i understand pretty clearly that you’re a TERF; what i don’t get is why you’re so insistent on sending 101 asks to me (and me specifically)

for that matter i don’t really understand how you think drawing ever-harder lines in the sand about who must be what gender, based on whatever criteria you’re going to pull out of your ass, is going to help anyone.  how can a patriarchy experience a blurring of gender lines and roles and escape unscathed?

also this all makes virtually zero sense please don’t try to make programming analogies.  maybe try car analogies; those are ok since i won’t be able to tell if you don’t actually know anything about cars.

and for what it’s worth i spend most of my time in python where you can change an object’s class with wild abandon whenever you want, so, lol

Anonymous asked:

Whenever I (as a female gamer) mention that women buy games as much as men do, men tend to dismiss it by saying that they probably buy mobile games or "girly" games. Is there a way that you debunk this to people?

askagamedev answered:

I can certainly try. Let’s take another look at the statistics presented by Super Data Research for 2013 talking about digital sales on video game consoles. There are a few points made here:

image

This data is for digital sales on game consoles. Not tablets, not phones, not facebook, not PCs. This means digital game downloads, microtransactions, DLC, subscriptions, etc. for game consoles - devices dedicated only to video games.

image

According to the breakdown of 2013 video game sales by Statista, video game sales by genre (not including social platforms, tablet or mobile devices - remember, game consoles only) in 2013 show casual games as only 2.3% of the market share and strategy games only a bit above at 3.4%. 

image

Going back to the Superdata Research, 37% of the people who bought digital game content in 2013 were women. There were approximately 214 million customers total. This means roughly 80 million women bought digital game content for consoles in 2013. Let’s put that into perspective (populations of France and Canada taken from Wikipedia).

image

If we assume an even distribution of money spent, these women spent approximately $925 million in 2013. If you compare this to the total value of a company (market cap), you get some interesting comparisons too:

image

Now… this doesn’t really prove that women buy as many games as men do. I’m actually pretty sure that men buy more console game content than women do. But it does show that there’s an awful lot of women out there who buy games, and ignoring a market that’s 80 million strong and growing seems pretty foolish to me. In short:

i don’t generally mash reblog but this is some good numbers

Anonymous asked:

"i can’t imagine why there are trans people who bitch about cis people" it's stuff like this that makes me less and less interested in seeing what you have to say about gender. b*tch is a misogynist slur. but anything goes to buffer the collective fantasy of "cis," an identifier for a class supposedly including the fictional group of women who benefit from conforming perfectly to gender... look up an article called "here’s how it ends" by phonaesthetica for a story re: the joys of cis-womanhood

man i guess you better stop reading what i have to say about gender then

Anonymous asked:

do you think that trans/gender identity is innate in newborns' brains and/or metaphysical "minds" (do you believe in such a thing) and if so how do you know that it itself isn't a social construction? how do you feel about transwomen who say types of clothing considered "women's clothes" (existing and having connotations *only* due to sociohistorical context) makes them "feel like women" or are you unwilling to talk/think about this at all

i don’t know how trans works.  i have wild guesses at best.  culture probably exacerbates it either way.

i don’t feel anything in particular.  lots of people like to wear clothes that make them feel like they belong to a group they identify with.  there’s nothing innately businesslike about a suit and tie, but people in business sure do love wearing them.  of course, crucially, no one was ever beaten for wearing a suit.

Anonymous asked:

'Patriarchy' refers to a system in which all males (including you) are taught to view women as resources out of which they can extract resources and act upon such education through varying degrees of violence, coercion, and manipulation against women. No need to eschew the nuance of feminist theory for the sake of the sociopaths that are MRAs (and by sociopaths I mean men who crash survivors speakouts to get up and gaslight/mansplain to every women in the room, which is a thing I watched happen)

how can you object that i’m ignoring nuance when your proposed definition is explicitly worded to allow zero nuance

Anonymous asked:

how do you propose scientists should talk about the specifics of the history and mechanics of human evolution if the words 'male' and 'female' has been usurped as referring to identity rather than physiological dimorphism, or is physiological dimorphism scrappable as it is rendered a social construction by the mere existence of intersex people or something

maybe we can introduce some kind of cue to indicate when people are talking about the history and mechanics of human evolution, which is like 0.000001% of the time

we can call it “context”

mindofamaddock:

kerplunkers:

hypo-thermic:

yogaboi:

toocooltobehipster:

To donate £5 to the charity supporting the male victims of domestic abuse, text the message: MKDV46 to 70070
Click here to watch the video

At first I though this was a joke

Don’t ignore this Tumblr

Yet they still do even when it’s right in their face.

This is literally still a feminist issue. This is literally still a feminist issue.

We literally are trying to get all domestic abuse down. We’re trying to change a culture that says it is ok to hurt any person physically. WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THAT ENTIRELY.

since context is everything, let me speculate wildly

maybe the women are laughing because they have been in the first situation far too often, and they are thinking finally, a gal who’s fighting back.

plus, you know, a number like “40%” doesn’t really capture difference in magnitude: i have read more detailed stats, and DV by women tends to be smacks and throwing things, whereas DV by men tends more towards choking i.e. trying to kill

that doesn’t make this a great state of affairs. but parading this around as “feminists only care about women!!” is wildly disingenuous.

unicoitus:

first of all, the “cookie analogy” regarding men is flawed in ways that are so blatant it’s absurd. the logic is nothing but, “a few in group X do bad things, so therefor group X is to be avoided and stigmatized as dangerous”

if that sounds like the exact same line of logic followed by the bigoted statements of racists against blacks when someone black commits violence, you’re exactly right (and even more flawed in this case since this involves a much bigger number, men being half the human population).

your math is totally bogus, here is why

people see that violent crime is committed disproportionately often by black people, and conclude that black people are more likely to be criminals. while technically true, people of any race still only have the most minute fraction of a chance of being criminals in the first place. but we are not well-equipped to deal with probabilities, and in particular we are really bad at conditional probability, so we get this all wrong.

meanwhile the mere threat of sexual assault is so pervasive that there are campaigns and advice all over the place aimed solely at women telling them how not to get raped. i don’t see a whole lot of posters telling white people how not to get stabbed by black people. but hey here’s a cosmo article and some RAINN resources and another magazine and this ridiculous handout and here’s another victim-blamey thing run by police and there are plenty more. these don’t exist to go “ha ha men are evil”; hell half of them are extremely patronizing to women. they come out of a place of genuine concern because this is a real problem.

how many women have been sexually assaulted? i don’t care to quibble over the exact number but it’s way more than a fraction of a percent. how much more frequent would it be if girls and women weren’t raised to check in with friends, be super-aware of their surroundings, etc.?

or, to put this another way: would you advise all women not to bother with any sort of rape prevention, since not all men are rapists? would you feel comfortable doing that, telling women not to do anything special that men wouldn’t do around other men? no checking in with a friend, no guarding your drink, no escape routes, no mace, no walking in pairs at night? would you?

none of this means men are evil, and i seriously doubt many women think they are. it means that there are quite a few evil people hiding among men, and there is no way to tell who they are.

hence the cookie analogy.

it’s flawed logic that makes no attempt to factor in that exceptions do not make the rule, along with confirmation bias, by exaggerating those exceptions and ignoring or downplaying the majority of non-violent individuals in that group

this is why someone came up with the cookie analogy

the cookies are not all poisoned

no one is calling them “poison cookies” because there’s one bad one

but why would you want to take the chance?

and why on earth would you get angry at people who didn’t want to try a cookie, or who proposed that maybe we shouldn’t poison our cookies?

second of all, Elliot was not a member of any MRA or MRM group. this is an outright lie tumblr perpetuated. he had some affiliation with a PUA (pick-up artist) group who are people not affiliated with MRA’s (despite what tumblr wants you to believe)

i suppose the problem is that it’s impossible to tell the difference

but you’re still wrong; he had some affiliation with an ex-PUA group. so you can’t tell the difference either. (please stop perpetuating lies ♥)

Elliot was a disturbed and mentally unwell person with some very dangerous complexes. was his motivation based on a sense of male entitlement? probably. but regardless, like the columbine shooting being blamed on a culture of violent music and video games, people are quick to blame everything but the individual themselves

people are quick to ask “how can we make this not happen again”. even the people blaming video games were still genuinely looking for an answer to that question.

maybe not fostering a culture of hatred and spite towards real actual women is a good step? like, who loses out if we do that, honestly

it takes a very unusual and exceptional set of circumstances to push a human being to commit such horrible acts, and it often has factors related to the individual themselves, such as severe mental illness, delusional mental states, and extreme viewpoints that the majority of people do not have. Elliot was far more a misanthrope than a misogynist from what I can gather, but regardless, he is not an excuse to start flipping out about all men being potential violent psychos

he only hated other men out of jealousy that they were with women. well also he was super racist, but from what i’ve read that again only came out in the form of rage that women would date “filthy blacks” and not him. frankly i don’t know how you can “gather” a damn thing at all and still be on the fence about whether he was a misogynist.

who is flipping out about all men’s being potential violent psychos? the problem is that some men are potential violent psychos, and we know this, but we are content to live in a culture where pushing the line is accepted and practically expected. we are basically grooming them.

more than three women are killed by their male romantic partners every day in the united states

mere hours after the UCSB shootings, a different guy in california shot eight times at three women for refusing to have sex with him and his friends (luckily missed every shot)

you seem to be under the impression that violence is a thing that comes in a quick burst, in the form of a shooting, and then there just isn’t any more until next year when we have another one. but no, it’s constant and everywhere.

his victims were 2 women and 4 men. I’ve heard claims that those men were killed accidently, another lie. the men were found to have been stabbed to death. tumblr has continuously ignored these 4 men or has claimed that it was 6-7 women who were killed, which is another outright lie, and has to be one of the more disgusting things I’ve seen in a long time. is your desire to perpetuate your ideological agenda so pathetically desperate that you would stoop to making the male victims completely invisible?

that’s how the story went around at first, before we knew what was going on. it’s a big game of telephone. it happens.

i stress that you got your own “correction” wrong in this very post so maybe refrain from the outlandish conclusions about others who made similar mistakes

given that his stated plan was to enter a sorority and slaughter everyone inside, this seems like a minor detail anyway

you want people to start taking social justice ideologies seriously? you could start by not outright lying and erasing victims for your own victim complex bullshit.

yeah lol why would women ever feel victimized when female soldiers are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers than harmed on the battlefield

or when a not-uncommon response to these recent shootings was to blame women for not having slept with the guy, the exact reason he was so angry in the first place

or really any of these things

not all men are violent, but far too many men feel entitled to women. so please stop fucking apologizing for them; you’re just helping them blend in.

patriarchy

the word refers to a system

it doesn’t refer to all male persons within that system

if you see someone gripe about the patriarchy and your first reaction is “not all men” then you have completely misunderstood what is going on here

that’s like seeing someone gripe about democracy and having a gut reaction of “not all voters”

nobody would do that, because obviously “voter” is just a name we use for a type of person who tends to benefit from democracy. any one person may not directly benefit, depending on how the cards fall, but the system is skewed to be kinder to voters overall.

“man” is pulling double-duty as a name for a type of person who tends to benefit from patriarchy. any one person may not directly benefit, depending on how the cards fall, but the system is skewed to be kinder to men overall.

i mean, hell, you know what the word literally means right? same root as “monarchy” or “hierarchy” — i.e., the people on top are men, and the underlying influences historically come from men. that doesn’t mean every man is at the top.

do you think women should be able to vote? should they be able to function in a democracy just like any other voter?

well there you go then

bad math recap

a while back i stumbled upon “dontneedfeminism” which had a lot of long posts of gripes about how hard men have it and links to back them up

i read a lot of the links (because hey wow this stuff is interesting) and mostly found a whole lot of serious twisting of statistics. i am pretty interested in math so this got me all fired up

i’m still seeing the originals get reblogged with comments like “heh and some people think we still need feminism” though so i’m shamelessly signal-boosting my responses

these cover a broad array of MRAish issues like custody battles and punishment for crime and education and so on

spoilers: almost all of the issues (or at least the linked research) boiled down to other factors, including gender stereotypes, racism, and classism. at least, the ones that weren’t outright fabricated. which sort of reinforces my suspicion that MRAs and anti-feminists don’t really care about solving or even examining these issues; they just collect them so they have something to flaunt at feminists. which is, you know, utterly repulsive.

links, with some choice quotes:

bad math, round 1:

…black men are penalized significantly more harshly than anyone else, whereas black women appear to be treated about the same as non-black women…

bad math, round 2:

…i’m also curious why there are almost twice as many homeless women with children as homeless men with children. does this mean about half of homeless families have both parents, and half have only a mother? where is the father?…

bad math, round 3:

feminists see things that are worse for women, and want to make them better for women. you see things that are worse for men, and apparently want to make them worse for women.

and a response to a response:

but distinct from issues that affect men just as much are issues that have different negative effects on men and women

for example, while women still win more custody battles, that also means most single parents (about 5 in 6) are single mothers.

bad math 4, from a disingenuous cretin named “logicd”:

interpreting statistics is tricky business; careful when making bold claims or you might come across as a bit silly

bad math 5:

are men not choosing to take far more dangerous jobs? they could be nurses and secretaries.

are men not choosing to commit more crimes, and ones that are more severe to boot?

twistcmyk asked:

You keep mentioning the incident when, again, that's not the fucking point. I've looked through your blog and seen nothing but feminazism. Yeah, feminazism, come at me, anons. And yes, I'll gladly unfollow the blog of an arrogant, entitled bitch.

glitchedpuppet answered:

Let’s keep on using the term “feminazi” seriously, to actually compare women and men fighting against deaths caused by misogyny to the slaughter that happened in Germany. Good job.

it really speaks volumes when someone considers “murdered millions of people” as roughly equivalent in magnitude to “wish some people in the same 49% of the population as i am wouldn’t shoot them in the face”

Anonymous asked:

You know what's really pissing me off now? How every woman on this site is now just calling all men monsters pretty much and raging about how this one girl got murdered? I'm pretty sure that women get murdered all the time, yet for whatever reason this has sparked a glory-filled feminist shitstorm on tumblr. I'm a pretty innocent guy if I say so myself, and I personally feel victimised by seeing all these posts. But oh no, they'll just say "that's how women feel" and shit. Tumblr is a cesspool.

canilupine answered:

I have no idea what’s going on all over Tumblr, but a friend linked me to her post, and it was just so completely dripping with hypocrisy that I felt the need to call her out on it.

see here is The Problem

no one is calling all men monsters

but a lot of women genuinely have to be wary around men because some men are monsters

there are wolves in sheep’s clothing among you, and that is scary. but because you aren’t the wolves’ targets, your reaction is: “But I’m not a wolf! Why are all these feminazis calling me a wolf?? UGH what a cesspool.”

women are constantly on guard against the rapists and murderers hiding among you, and you don’t care. you only see that you’re being lumped in with the wolves. but the fact that they exist isn’t your problem, and you don’t want to help get rid of them; you just want to make clear that you aren’t a wolf, and whatever happens after that isn’t your business.

but, you know

the trick only works if there are a great many sheep who are happy to calmly mill about and let the wolves blend in

which is what you’re doing by making this about your pride instead of other people’s lives

if you made a fuss, if you helped draw the line, if you decided violence is unacceptable

if you refused to let wolves hang out among you

then no one would need to fear the sheep