a-last-word-please

[a-last-word-please]

people will really be like it's racist to be mad about misogyny if the misogyny benefits men who aren't white

[a-last-word-please]

I wasn’t scared of murderers or monsters as a kid but I was very scared of: stairs, encephalitis, meningitis, flesh eating bacteria, mushrooms, and mold. what’s your very specific childhood fear

[a-last-word-please]

[a-last-word-please]

dark ouside huh? :) thats because its winter now. & if you listen i can tell you more. about this world

[a-last-word-please]

[a-last-word-please]

Masterpost of gender-neutral language used for women but not men

Some say that gender-neutral language is not sexist, nor does it erase women. Here are some examples that prove otherwise, revealing the bias for women, and not men, to surrender linguistic boundaries.

(I’ve been collecting examples since I made this post. Thanks to all who submitted! I will keep adding on.)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

[a-last-word-please]

Womens marches are also not allowing coat hanger imagery on any posters because it perpetuates the idea that abortions are dangerous and harmful.

Ok.

But like.

Hear me out.

If abortion becomes illegal…then abortions may they in fact become dangerous and harmful…and that’s why people put it on posters.

As a way to remind people of what abortions used to look like.

So like.

The hanger is actually a very important symbol of the risks women face when the don’t have full control of their reproduction.

I’m confused on what got lost there?

[a-last-word-please]

It’s October! You know what that means... 🎃 (via kxvo)

[a-last-word-please]

Maya Forstater on twitter

[a-last-word-please]

this whole fucking thread is worth a read but i can’t believe this is the first time i’ve seen anyone with a platform say it??? 

[a-last-word-please]

oh, honey.

jizzers get to still be called “men,” but women must become “birthing people”;

this is somehow not “reducing women to their uteruses just like the patriarchy does” because reasons;

all that fucking effort when you could have just said “straight men”;

as written, none of this makes any grammatical sense; and finally

in the context of getting an IUD (or dating a man with a vasectomy), a woman is literally NOT a “birthing person,” THAT IS THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT

[a-last-word-please]

update:

thanks for your contribution, sir!

If you woke up this morning to the news that in the middle of the night, in an unsigned order, five conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court ended 50 years of abortion rights in Texas without full briefing or oral argument, you might well be wondering why they didn’t just wait and do it on the regular docket, in a Mississippi case they will hear this fall. That case, Dobbs, would have achieved most of the same outcomes—Mississippi’s is a 15-week ban as compared with Texas’ six-week—but both were pre-viability and both upend the long-standing rule that pre-viability bans are unconstitutional. After sitting on the Mississippi case for months, the high court agreed to hear Dobbs last spring, despite the fact that there was no circuit split and no need to address the abortion issue at all. The difference was merely that Amy Coney Barrett had taken over from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There was no meaningful way to understand the decision to take up Dobbs beyond the fact that with Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett now seated, the court finally had the votes to end Roe.

So if the court planned to do so anyhow, and as early as 2022, in a properly briefed and argued case with an actual trial record, what possible logic led five justices to do the sneaky, garbage version in a page and a half at midnight? They could have used Dobbs and some cynical trickery with the undue burden test to achieve the same result in an open, orderly fashion, but instead they opted to do it over their summer recess, on the shadow docket, without proper explanation or transparency.

The cynic in me stands by the claim that they never intended to do in the open what could be done through sloppy subterfuge; that blaming irascible Texas wackiness, throwing up their hands and sighing that a law that was designed to evade judicial scrutiny somehow should evade scrutiny, and then slinking off to bed in the hopes that nobody would care much was always the most appealing strategy. But a careful look at the shoddy, contemptuous jurisdictional reasoning of the five justices in the majority suggests something even darker. It’s not just that the majority of the Supreme Court functionally ended abortion rights for most women in Texas last night merely because they could. And it’s not just that they did so because—as is so often the case with impressionistic, frayed shadow docket reasoning—their personal feelings about the constitutional right to abortion are quite robust. It’s almost impossible to not go one further and declare that the court opted to end virtually all abortion rights in Texas, in the full knowledge that they were blessing an unconstitutional and brutal piece of lawless vigilantism, because it’s only about women.

Don’t even bother asking what the five justices on the majority of this court would have done with a hypothetical California law that conscripted citizen bounty hunters into reporting their suspicions about a neighbor’s unlawful gun possession. That order would have been 20 pages long, full of robust and muscular constitutional claims and outraged howls about broken Second Amendment promises. But a court that comes to you in the dark of night, without logic or reason, whispering soothing words about how “this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law” as it upends the constitutionality of Texas law? That is the stuff of ancient gaslighting, reserved for those moments in which Power is explaining to Women that they are just being hysterical, and to kindly lie back and enjoy it.

Why didn’t the Supreme Court wait a few months and use Dobbs to end Roe in the clear light of day with an opinion that pretended to be respecting precedent as it lectured us about its solicitude for maternal health? Why not offer the relatively generous 15-week ban as a compromise to the Texas ban? But really, why ask why? Why do the thing in the most direct, if brutally violent fashion, when you could have waited a few months, heard actual arguments, then cloaked yourself in three-part tests and jargon and footnotes to paper over the jagged bits? Given a few months’ time, the conservative majority could have insisted it was soberly considering the existing doctrine, respecting long-standing precedent as they disregarded it, calling balls and strikes (as men do) in neutral and sober fashion. But instead they did it at midnight, shrugging that their hands were just tied, and showing Joni Ernst and Susan Collins and Ben Sasse to be the flagrant liars they are.

The inevitable answer is chilling: This isn’t about guns or speech or money or war. It’s about women, their lives and their bodies and their autonomy. That’s what allows you to do shoddy work, with careless disregard, because who’s going to stop you? You only do the thing in the dead of night, without care or effort, because you believe women are so used to being gaslit that you expect them to just tolerate it. You only do the thing in the dead of night without care or effort because you genuinely believe that they’re only women, and they deserve what they get.

[a-last-word-please]

If you woke up this morning to the news that in the middle of the night, in an unsigned order, five conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court ended 50 years of abortion rights in Texas without full briefing or oral argument, you might well be wondering why they didn’t just wait and do it on the regular docket, in a Mississippi case they will hear this fall. That case, Dobbs, would have achieved most of the same outcomes—Mississippi’s is a 15-week ban as compared with Texas’ six-week—but both were pre-viability and both upend the long-standing rule that pre-viability bans are unconstitutional. After sitting on the Mississippi case for months, the high court agreed to hear Dobbs last spring, despite the fact that there was no circuit split and no need to address the abortion issue at all. The difference was merely that Amy Coney Barrett had taken over from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There was no meaningful way to understand the decision to take up Dobbs beyond the fact that with Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett now seated, the court finally had the votes to end Roe.

So if the court planned to do so anyhow, and as early as 2022, in a properly briefed and argued case with an actual trial record, what possible logic led five justices to do the sneaky, garbage version in a page and a half at midnight? They could have used Dobbs and some cynical trickery with the undue burden test to achieve the same result in an open, orderly fashion, but instead they opted to do it over their summer recess, on the shadow docket, without proper explanation or transparency.

The cynic in me stands by the claim that they never intended to do in the open what could be done through sloppy subterfuge; that blaming irascible Texas wackiness, throwing up their hands and sighing that a law that was designed to evade judicial scrutiny somehow should evade scrutiny, and then slinking off to bed in the hopes that nobody would care much was always the most appealing strategy. But a careful look at the shoddy, contemptuous jurisdictional reasoning of the five justices in the majority suggests something even darker. It’s not just that the majority of the Supreme Court functionally ended abortion rights for most women in Texas last night merely because they could. And it’s not just that they did so because—as is so often the case with impressionistic, frayed shadow docket reasoning—their personal feelings about the constitutional right to abortion are quite robust. It’s almost impossible to not go one further and declare that the court opted to end virtually all abortion rights in Texas, in the full knowledge that they were blessing an unconstitutional and brutal piece of lawless vigilantism, because it’s only about women.

Don’t even bother asking what the five justices on the majority of this court would have done with a hypothetical California law that conscripted citizen bounty hunters into reporting their suspicions about a neighbor’s unlawful gun possession. That order would have been 20 pages long, full of robust and muscular constitutional claims and outraged howls about broken Second Amendment promises. But a court that comes to you in the dark of night, without logic or reason, whispering soothing words about how “this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law” as it upends the constitutionality of Texas law? That is the stuff of ancient gaslighting, reserved for those moments in which Power is explaining to Women that they are just being hysterical, and to kindly lie back and enjoy it.

Why didn’t the Supreme Court wait a few months and use Dobbs to end Roe in the clear light of day with an opinion that pretended to be respecting precedent as it lectured us about its solicitude for maternal health? Why not offer the relatively generous 15-week ban as a compromise to the Texas ban? But really, why ask why? Why do the thing in the most direct, if brutally violent fashion, when you could have waited a few months, heard actual arguments, then cloaked yourself in three-part tests and jargon and footnotes to paper over the jagged bits? Given a few months’ time, the conservative majority could have insisted it was soberly considering the existing doctrine, respecting long-standing precedent as they disregarded it, calling balls and strikes (as men do) in neutral and sober fashion. But instead they did it at midnight, shrugging that their hands were just tied, and showing Joni Ernst and Susan Collins and Ben Sasse to be the flagrant liars they are.

The inevitable answer is chilling: This isn’t about guns or speech or money or war. It’s about women, their lives and their bodies and their autonomy. That’s what allows you to do shoddy work, with careless disregard, because who’s going to stop you? You only do the thing in the dead of night, without care or effort, because you believe women are so used to being gaslit that you expect them to just tolerate it. You only do the thing in the dead of night without care or effort because you genuinely believe that they’re only women, and they deserve what they get.

[a-last-word-please]

Men and boys don’t commit sexual assaults because they’re uneducated or ignorant. They commit sexual assaults because the benefits to them outweigh the costs to them. The way to decrease the number of sexual assaults is to change this balance by creating and maintaining meaningful consequences.

[a-last-word-please]

ppl don’t binge eat bc ~processed food tastes too good~ or whatever paranoid reasoning diet culture has taught us, they binge bc they have a history of deprivation and restriction, often self-imposed. 

if you think you’re not allowed to eat this or that food, you’re going to binge 

if you think your “good” diet/lifestyle/behavior will start tomorrow, you’re going to binge (aka last supper eating)

if you have a history of food insecurity, you’re going to binge when food is available

if you have a history of dieting or being put on diets, you’re going to binge to be sure your net energy needs are met 

if you have an eating disorder, you’re going to binge… and if you don’t, you’re more likely to die of the illness

the body drives hunger for very good reason, and it takes a long, stable period of eating sufficiently to get its hyperphagic (extreme hunger/eating) mechanisms to stand down. more deprivation means more out-of-control eating; more response to hunger means more regulated eating patterns. it really is that simple.

[a-last-word-please]

[a-last-word-please]

sir,,,,,,,,,who do you think strip clubs are for