Zap!

stfuhypocrisy:

“If you are a woman. If you are a Person of Colour. If you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, if you’re a person of size, if you’re a person of intelligence, if you’re a person of integrity, then you are considered a minority in this world. And it’s gonna be really hard to find messages of self-love, and support anywhere, especially women’s and gay men’s culture. It’s all about how you have to look a certain way or else you’re worthless. You know when you look in the mirror, and you think, ‘Ugh, I’m so fat, I’m so old, I’m so ugly’, don’t you know that’s not your authentic self, but that is billions upon billions of dollars of advertising, magazines, movies, billboards, all geared to make you feel shitty about yourself so that you will take your hard-earned money and spend it on some turnaround cream that doesn’t turnaround shit.

When you don’t have self-esteem, you will hesitate before you do anything in your life. You will hesitate to go for the job you really wanna go for. You will hesitate to ask for a raise. You will hesitate to report a rape. You will hesitate to defend yourself when you are discriminated against because of your race, your sexuality, your size, your gender. You will hesitate to vote. You will hesitate to dream. 

For us to have self-esteem is truly an act of revolution. And our revolution is long-overdue.”

Inspirational Women I Love —> Margaret Cho

Dear Margaret Cho

Please continue being a badass. I love you for it.

Love,

People who love and appreciate badasses.

amorousoutlaw:

Fuck yeah Girl Scouts! I never knew they were this rad! Gotta love the irony in anti-girl scouts propaganda serving to make me love them.

Yes
Proud to have been a girl scout :)

amorousoutlaw:

Fuck yeah Girl Scouts! I never knew they were this rad!
Gotta love the irony in anti-girl scouts propaganda serving to make me love them.

Yes

Proud to have been a girl scout :)

xshiromorix:

Just a reminder:

When Prophet Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) was travelling on the road with his cousin, Al-Fadl ibn Abbas, a woman stopped him to ask him a question.  The woman was very beautiful, and Al-Fadl couldn’t help but stare at her.

Seeing this, Prophet Muhammad reached out his hand and turned his cousin’s face away.

He didn’t tell the woman to cover her face.

He didn’t tell her to change her clothing.

He didn’t tell her that her appearance was too tempting or indecent.

He averted his cousin’s impolite stare.

feministepiphanies:

amajor7:

“I identify as non-bunary, actually.”

The social construction of gender is just so deeply ingrained in our culture.

oh my god

feministepiphanies:

amajor7:

“I identify as non-bunary, actually.”

The social construction of gender is just so deeply ingrained in our culture.

oh my god

feminishblog:

jhameia:

Just because it is an opinion.

Does not mean it is intrinsically valid or valuable.

Does not mean it is simply an aside incapable of causing harm.

Does not mean it even has to be said.

Especially if it is factually incorrect and a continuation of falsehoods that drive in problems rather than ease them.

So just because it is an opinion does not mean we can’t tell you it isn’t welcome.

And maybe.

If you back your thoughts up with FACTS rather than OPINIONS.

You wouldn’t feel so attacked and hurt when people cut your OPINION down to its rightful place.

It’s a poor life that can only rely on OPINION for worth.

Especially on opinions based on utterly wrong statements and uncritical thought.

I need to print this out and hand it to people at times, instead of explaining why I don’t respect their opinions.

Her Body Is Not Your Playground: Why the Photoshopped Frida Nudes Are Not Okay

blackgirldangerous:

by Mia McKenzie
October 25, 2012

A couple of months ago, I started seeing these images going around on Facebook, of Frida Kahlo in various stages of nudity. They were being posted and re-posted by several people I like, awesome POCs whose admiration of Frida Kahlo I definitely share. But something about the images seemed off to me. I mean, where had all these new images come from, all of a sudden? I decided to click on the link, to actually follow it to a web page. And there I discovered the awful truth: that these were all photoshopped images of Frida Kahlo’s face on someone else’s body.

Why would anyone do this? I mean, okay, there are all kinds of photoshopped pics of celebrity heads attached to naked bodies that don’t belong to them. Apparently, the desire to see a woman with her clothes off is so powerful to some people that seeing her with someone else’s clothes off will suffice. I won’t lie. I don’t get it. But I guess some people are into that. Okay. But, right or wrong, I guess I don’t personally associate this phenomenon with the kind of folks who actually know who Frida Kahlo is. Further, I guess I expect that people who do know who she is, and who care enough to click and share a link about her, would respect her enough to not want to see her objectified, and in such extreme ways. But then I realized that the person behind all of this was a white man. And I was like, “Oh. Yeah. Figures.” When did the idea of respecting the image, body, or identity of women of color ever trump the need for white men (or any men, really) to do whatever they please? Brown and black women have been treated as beasts of the sexual burden of white men for hundreds of years. White men have regarded the bodies of dark women as plantation playgrounds, where they can rape and abuse and use as they please, for centuries. This is yet another way to do that. Without any rightful claim to it, this person has taken the idea of Frida Kahlo’s body, staked a claim to it, used it for what he desires, and called it art.

Is this art? Really? Is this “genius” the way it is described here? Or is it just the same old racist, misogynist bullshit?

Don’t answer. It’s a rhetorical question.

There is more at play here, too, than just racism and misogyny (as if those aren’t enough). The fact of the matter is that Frida Kahlo did not likely have a body that looked like any of the bodies being used for these photoshopped images. The real, authentic nude photographs of Frida that exist only show her naked from the front, and from the waist up. What we know about her life is that she was a victim in a terrible bus crash in her youth, and that the results of that crash included years of surgeries, full-body casts, and the inability to have children.

From Bio.com:

Kahlo was impaled by a steel handrail, which went into her hip and came out the other side. She suffered several serious injuries as a result, including fractures in her spine and pelvis.

Following the accident, Frida would go on to have more than thirty surgeries.

We’d have to be in some serious denial to think that these things did not affect the way Frida’s body looked. There were surely scars, surely much evidence of decades of pain and surgery and brokenness. To replace that broken, scarred body with smooth, un-flawed flesh, as in these photoshopped pics, is plainly able-ist. Further, it dishonors the life Frida Kahlo lived and the experiences she survived. Here was a woman, an artist, whose artistic expression had everything to do with her physical pain, everything to do with existing inside a body that was twisted and gnarled, a body that hurt every day. To erase that is to attempt to erase Frida herself.

At the rate these pics are being shared, if this keeps up, these images of Frida Kahlo, which are not images of Frida Kahlo at all, will replace the authentic images that we have of her in our hearts and minds. People who don’t know her story, who don’t realize how fake these images are, will take them as the truth when there is no truth in them, when they are blatant lies. Lies created by someone who shares neither her color, nor her gender, nor her pain.

Whenever I see one of these photos posted in my Facebook news feed, I write a comment to let the person who posted it know that it’s fake and why that’s fucked-up. Maybe if others join me in this practice, we can help save the real image of Frida from erasure.

[About the author]

Dear Conservatives,

Redefining families is not destroying families.

Redefining families is not destroying families.

Redefining families is not destroying families.

Redefining families is not destroying families.

Sincerely,

women, lesbians, gays, queers and polyamorous folk.

Also:

Tearing apart loving couples from each other and their children IS destroying families.

Teaching parents to disown children who come out IS destroying families.

elenapoetry:

Whilst water washes away,

a fire cleanses, down.

Fire fails to falter and drown

in the water’s foamy spray.

Water never quenched my thirst,

but now it makes me steam.

Sometimes it makes me want to scream;

but I’d have to burn out first.

It should know these embers never fade;

Though sometimes they merely smolder,

more so now that I am older.

Fire for light and fire for shade;

But then, water has always tried

to dull those flames that must not die.

Eve: Mother of All Living

gynocraticgrrl:

The Biblical title of Eve, “Mother of All Living,” was a translation of Kali Ma’s title Jaganmata. She was also known in India as Jiva or Ieva, the Creatress of all manifested forms.(1) In Assyrian scriptures she was entitled Mother-Womb, Creatress of Destiny, who made male and female human beings out of clay, “in pairs she completed them.”(2) The first of the bible’s two creation myths gives this Assyrian version, significantly changing “she” to “he” (Genesis 1:27).

Side point: One of her Tantric names was Adita Eva: “the Very Beginning.”(3) In northern Babylonia, Eve was known as “the divine Lady of Eden,” or “Goddess of the Tree of Life.”(4) Assyrians called her Nin-Eveh, “Holy Lady Eve,” after whom their capital city was named.

The original Eve had no spouse except the serpent, a living phallus she created for her own sexual pleasure.(5) Some ancient peoples regarded the Goddess and her serpent as their first parents.(6) Sacred icons showed the Goddess giving life to a man, while her serpent coiled around the apple tree behind her.(7) Deliberate misinterpretation of such icons produced ideas for revised creation myths like the one in Genesis. Some Jewish traditions of the first century B.C., however, identified Yahweh (Jehovah) with the serpent deity who accompanied the Mother in her garden.(8) Sometimes she was Eve, sometimes her name was given as Nahemah, Naama, or Namrael, who gave birth to Eve and Adam without the help of any male, even the serpent. (9)

Read More

Interesting