Dreaming Worlds, Writing Dreams

Dreaming Worlds, Writing Dreams

trust:

"all girls dress the same"

trust:

"all girls dress the same"

(via misandryad)

soloontherocks:

jackthevulture:

IM SCREAMIBG WITH LAUGHTER THESE GIRLS ARE MY HEROES

SHOTS FUCKING FIRED

For anyone not familiar with how modern country sounds, these girls are calling out ACTUAL songs like making blatant references to ACTUAL lyrics from other songs on the radio.

And its fucking FLAWLESS OH MY GOD THIS IS AMAZING.

One of the reasons I stopped listening to country was, when I was a kid, the radio was full of songs by women and songs that talked about women like they were actual people.

Now so many of the songs dont give women a personality, just describe things about them like their legs, their lips, how they look in your truck. Its just SO much objectification.

My sister just showed me this and its ADSFHASDFKLLKFH she even said she heard it on the radio im so happy

"I aint your tan legged juliet" IM SCREECHING

I might be in love please send help

(via misandryad)

why the fuck am i crying

literally me during any situation that is slightly emotional (via tommypickles)

(via wardengrey)

branaivanovic:

Harry Potter: Re-imagined 

-Ginny Weasley
-Neville Longbottom
-Luna Lovegood
branaivanovic:

Harry Potter: Re-imagined 

-Ginny Weasley
-Neville Longbottom
-Luna Lovegood
branaivanovic:

Harry Potter: Re-imagined 

-Ginny Weasley
-Neville Longbottom
-Luna Lovegood

branaivanovic:

Harry Potter: Re-imagined 

-Ginny Weasley

-Neville Longbottom

-Luna Lovegood

(via fuckitfireeverything)

ohheyitsripley:

spoken-not-written:

who-lligan:

artbymoga:

promising-promises:

princesssugarbutt:

So yeah I can see how many fingers you’re holding up

THIS IS VERY ACCURATE

THIS IS VERY BEAUTIFUL

Is this accurate? Is this what it’s actually like to not be able to see clearly?

yes

YES! Having imperfect vision is a lot like being a camera that is slightly out of focus, varying person to person.Shapes and colors are still obvious and most of the time you are pretty aware of what the scene should look like. Putting glasses on your face is like twisting at the lens, and bringing the world into focus.
ohheyitsripley:

spoken-not-written:

who-lligan:

artbymoga:

promising-promises:

princesssugarbutt:

So yeah I can see how many fingers you’re holding up

THIS IS VERY ACCURATE

THIS IS VERY BEAUTIFUL

Is this accurate? Is this what it’s actually like to not be able to see clearly?

yes

YES! Having imperfect vision is a lot like being a camera that is slightly out of focus, varying person to person.Shapes and colors are still obvious and most of the time you are pretty aware of what the scene should look like. Putting glasses on your face is like twisting at the lens, and bringing the world into focus.
ohheyitsripley:

spoken-not-written:

who-lligan:

artbymoga:

promising-promises:

princesssugarbutt:

So yeah I can see how many fingers you’re holding up

THIS IS VERY ACCURATE

THIS IS VERY BEAUTIFUL

Is this accurate? Is this what it’s actually like to not be able to see clearly?

yes

YES! Having imperfect vision is a lot like being a camera that is slightly out of focus, varying person to person.Shapes and colors are still obvious and most of the time you are pretty aware of what the scene should look like. Putting glasses on your face is like twisting at the lens, and bringing the world into focus.
ohheyitsripley:

spoken-not-written:

who-lligan:

artbymoga:

promising-promises:

princesssugarbutt:

So yeah I can see how many fingers you’re holding up

THIS IS VERY ACCURATE

THIS IS VERY BEAUTIFUL

Is this accurate? Is this what it’s actually like to not be able to see clearly?

yes

YES! Having imperfect vision is a lot like being a camera that is slightly out of focus, varying person to person.Shapes and colors are still obvious and most of the time you are pretty aware of what the scene should look like. Putting glasses on your face is like twisting at the lens, and bringing the world into focus.

ohheyitsripley:

spoken-not-written:

who-lligan:

artbymoga:

promising-promises:

princesssugarbutt:

So yeah I can see how many fingers you’re holding up

THIS IS VERY ACCURATE

THIS IS VERY BEAUTIFUL

Is this accurate? Is this what it’s actually like to not be able to see clearly?

yes

YES! Having imperfect vision is a lot like being a camera that is slightly out of focus, varying person to person.Shapes and colors are still obvious and most of the time you are pretty aware of what the scene should look like. Putting glasses on your face is like twisting at the lens, and bringing the world into focus.

(via pakeeztani)

violant-kk:

dimensionsintime:

cutetimmytim:

dimensionsintime:

annespage:

mutantbakabutt:

foreverisreal:

blunts-and-robots:

devils-in-my-head:



this this this this this

if anyone hates me for this you’re not thinking clearly
think about the amount of people killed in the middle east, too ..

lol so edgy xD

the only reason america dropped the atomic bomb was because we were at WAR idiots, if we hadn’t dropped the bomb the war would’ve lasted at lot longer. 9/11 was an act of terrorism, why don’t you go watch a video of the twin towers as they burn after the planes crash into them and later collapse in on themselves burying not only the people that worked there inside, but also the police officers and firefighters who were trying to rescue any survivors, and before they collapsed, when people were forced to choose to burn or jump out to their deaths. so yeah, the atomic bomb killed more people, but one was during WWII and the other was a direct attack of terrorism on America. And the only reason we were at war with Japan was because they attacked us at pearl harbor, if they hadn’t done that the war would’ve stayed in Europe and the atomic bomb wouldn’t have been dropped.

Not even remotely true, but thanks for playing. This misconception largely occurs because of the famous Stimson article that was featured in Harpers’ magazine.
Of course, he didn’t actually WRITE the thing and, though it presents itself as a fireside chat between two people it was actually a heavily engineered document, and almost every fact cited was knowingly wrong by the government at the time (declassified documents - read ‘em). But hey! What better source for info!
That’s neither here nor there though since Japan tried to surrender before we dropped the bomb.
Several Times.
Yes, Japan tried to surrender. Once through Russia, once through Switzerland, once through the Vatican of all places, and many times appealing directly to Truman. We turned them down because of the stipulation that we were not allowed to touch their emperor, a concession the US was not willing to make at the time.

“Foreign Minister Shigemitsu has instructed Ambassador Sato [in Moscow] to find out whether Russia is willing to assist in bringing about a negotiated peace. Shigemitsu’s instructions, although cautiously worded, clearly imply that he has in mind a move by Russia to initiate peace discussions between Japan and the Anglo-Americans… [I]t seems hardly likely that he would have taken such a step without having consulted at least some of the more important members of the new Japanese cabinet… This is the first time that the Japanese have been willing to suggest to Russia directly that they are ready for peace.”
-“Japanese Consider Peace Possibilities” War Department MAGIC reports of intercepted messages: EYES ONLY for President and closest advisers
“I learn from a very reliable source that in important civilian circles in Japan the peace problem is being discussed with increasing anxiety. A speedy German collapse is expected and it is not believed that Japan can then continue the war. It is therefore considered necessary to get peace as soon as possible before the country and towns are destroyed… If any willingness appeared to exist in London the Japanese would be ready for preliminary discussions through Swedish channels. Behind the man who gave me this message stands one of the best known statesment in Japan and there is no doubt that this attempt must be considered as a serious one.”
-Telegram from Swedish minister in Tokyo given from the British Ambassador to the United States
“…It seems probably that very far-reaching conditions would be accepted by the Japanese by way of negotiation… Exchange of the Japanese constituted must also be considered as excluded. The Emperor must not be touched. However, the Imperial power could be somewhat democratized as is that of the English King”
-Report from Swedish minister in Tokyo sent to US State Department
AND EVEN LATER THEY GAVE THOSE CONDITIONS UP
“…Stated that he had been asked by Masutaro Inoue, Counsellor for the Japanese Legation in Portugal, to contact United States representatives. Source quoted Inoue as saying that the Japanese are ready to cease hostilities, provided they are allowed to retain possession of their home islands… On 19 May [1945], the OSS representative reported Inoue again had repeated to source his desire to talk with an American representative. On this occasion Inoue declared that actual peace terms were unimportant so long as the term ‘unconditional surrender’ was not employed.”
-OSS Representative report directly to Truman

Of course, we did anyway. But that’s not important.
Because the bomb wasn’t about Japan.
In Derry and Ramsey’s Memo to Groves (May 12, 1945) when picking a target for the atomic bomb, one of the primary listed reasons for picking a target was:

“making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.”

In fact, they ranked targets - AA to B. Know what got the lowest ratings? Military targets. The ones that got the highest ratings were civilian ones.
Japan was currently researching wooden planes. WOODEN PLANES. They had attempted to give up, we said no. They had already lost the war when we dropped the bomb. They knew this - hell, they tried to surrender.
So why did we drop the bomb, then?
A close reading of the memo tells all. It was to make an impact on the international community.
Do you know how Truman was first informed about the Manhatten Project and the bomb? It was in a discussion with the Secretary of State in regards to negotiations with Russia after the war.
Truman kept delaying the “Big Three” discussions, the most important political talks in recorded history, until basically the day AFTER the Trinity Tests - he wanted to wait until he knew he had the bomb as a political piece. Stalin and Churchill were VERY angry at him pushing the date back with little to no reason given (they knew, of course, because of spies and intelligence).
Still don’t believe me?
The Secretary of War, and MOST of the army was against dropping the bomb. They wanted to give the option of doing a demonstration and giving Japan an option of total surrender (that we get to do whatever we want with the Emperor) or of giving Japan time to evacuate the civilian population before bombing a city.
Oh, and there’s this from Stimson’s Memo of Talk with Truman (June 6, 1945)

“I told [the President] that I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood.”

He laughed.
An estimated 500,000 people died between Nagasaki and Hiroshima if you count deaths by radiation poisoning and long-term cancer.
And Truman could only laugh because he was worried the bomb might not be noticeable amongst the wreckage of Japan.
The reason for dropping the bomb was to give America a better condition amongst the international population, particularly Stalin and Russia, in the coming years. It was to make Russia afraid to invade Japan (and from there, the fear was, the rest of Asia) when they knew America had interests in it. They dropped the bomb to give them an advantage when negotiating in the future and to give them a start when everyone began arming (a situation tons of scientists warned everyone about in The Franck Report).
But don’t pretend it was about Japan. And don’t you dare pretend it was about peace.
500,000 people died and all Truman could do was laugh.

I’m rebloggjng this because of the fullness of the information-rich response (the part that actually contains facts, not the rah rah America one)

Bringing this back because it needs to be said and people need reminding.

WHY WAS I NEVER TAUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT THIS
WHY-
I-
The rage and betrayal I feel grows every day knowing I was forced to endure public “education” for 14 years.

violant-kk:

dimensionsintime:

cutetimmytim:

dimensionsintime:

annespage:

mutantbakabutt:

foreverisreal:

blunts-and-robots:

devils-in-my-head:

image

this this this this this

if anyone hates me for this you’re not thinking clearly

think about the amount of people killed in the middle east, too ..

lol so edgy xD

the only reason america dropped the atomic bomb was because we were at WAR idiots, if we hadn’t dropped the bomb the war would’ve lasted at lot longer. 9/11 was an act of terrorism, why don’t you go watch a video of the twin towers as they burn after the planes crash into them and later collapse in on themselves burying not only the people that worked there inside, but also the police officers and firefighters who were trying to rescue any survivors, and before they collapsed, when people were forced to choose to burn or jump out to their deaths. so yeah, the atomic bomb killed more people, but one was during WWII and the other was a direct attack of terrorism on America. And the only reason we were at war with Japan was because they attacked us at pearl harbor, if they hadn’t done that the war would’ve stayed in Europe and the atomic bomb wouldn’t have been dropped.

Not even remotely true, but thanks for playing. This misconception largely occurs because of the famous Stimson article that was featured in Harpers’ magazine.

Of course, he didn’t actually WRITE the thing and, though it presents itself as a fireside chat between two people it was actually a heavily engineered document, and almost every fact cited was knowingly wrong by the government at the time (declassified documents - read ‘em). But hey! What better source for info!

That’s neither here nor there though since Japan tried to surrender before we dropped the bomb.

Several Times.

Yes, Japan tried to surrender. Once through Russia, once through Switzerland, once through the Vatican of all places, and many times appealing directly to Truman. We turned them down because of the stipulation that we were not allowed to touch their emperor, a concession the US was not willing to make at the time.

“Foreign Minister Shigemitsu has instructed Ambassador Sato [in Moscow] to find out whether Russia is willing to assist in bringing about a negotiated peace. Shigemitsu’s instructions, although cautiously worded, clearly imply that he has in mind a move by Russia to initiate peace discussions between Japan and the Anglo-Americans… [I]t seems hardly likely that he would have taken such a step without having consulted at least some of the more important members of the new Japanese cabinet… This is the first time that the Japanese have been willing to suggest to Russia directly that they are ready for peace.”

-“Japanese Consider Peace Possibilities” War Department MAGIC reports of intercepted messages: EYES ONLY for President and closest advisers

“I learn from a very reliable source that in important civilian circles in Japan the peace problem is being discussed with increasing anxiety. A speedy German collapse is expected and it is not believed that Japan can then continue the war. It is therefore considered necessary to get peace as soon as possible before the country and towns are destroyed… If any willingness appeared to exist in London the Japanese would be ready for preliminary discussions through Swedish channels. Behind the man who gave me this message stands one of the best known statesment in Japan and there is no doubt that this attempt must be considered as a serious one.”

-Telegram from Swedish minister in Tokyo given from the British Ambassador to the United States

“…It seems probably that very far-reaching conditions would be accepted by the Japanese by way of negotiation… Exchange of the Japanese constituted must also be considered as excluded. The Emperor must not be touched. However, the Imperial power could be somewhat democratized as is that of the English King”

-Report from Swedish minister in Tokyo sent to US State Department

AND EVEN LATER THEY GAVE THOSE CONDITIONS UP

“…Stated that he had been asked by Masutaro Inoue, Counsellor for the Japanese Legation in Portugal, to contact United States representatives. Source quoted Inoue as saying that the Japanese are ready to cease hostilities, provided they are allowed to retain possession of their home islands… On 19 May [1945], the OSS representative reported Inoue again had repeated to source his desire to talk with an American representative. On this occasion Inoue declared that actual peace terms were unimportant so long as the term ‘unconditional surrender’ was not employed.”

-OSS Representative report directly to Truman

Of course, we did anyway. But that’s not important.

Because the bomb wasn’t about Japan.

In Derry and Ramsey’s Memo to Groves (May 12, 1945) when picking a target for the atomic bomb, one of the primary listed reasons for picking a target was:

“making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.”

In fact, they ranked targets - AA to B. Know what got the lowest ratings? Military targets. The ones that got the highest ratings were civilian ones.

Japan was currently researching wooden planes. WOODEN PLANES. They had attempted to give up, we said no. They had already lost the war when we dropped the bomb. They knew this - hell, they tried to surrender.

So why did we drop the bomb, then?

A close reading of the memo tells all. It was to make an impact on the international community.

Do you know how Truman was first informed about the Manhatten Project and the bomb? It was in a discussion with the Secretary of State in regards to negotiations with Russia after the war.

Truman kept delaying the “Big Three” discussions, the most important political talks in recorded history, until basically the day AFTER the Trinity Tests - he wanted to wait until he knew he had the bomb as a political piece. Stalin and Churchill were VERY angry at him pushing the date back with little to no reason given (they knew, of course, because of spies and intelligence).

Still don’t believe me?

The Secretary of War, and MOST of the army was against dropping the bomb. They wanted to give the option of doing a demonstration and giving Japan an option of total surrender (that we get to do whatever we want with the Emperor) or of giving Japan time to evacuate the civilian population before bombing a city.

Oh, and there’s this from Stimson’s Memo of Talk with Truman (June 6, 1945)

“I told [the President] that I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood.”

He laughed.

An estimated 500,000 people died between Nagasaki and Hiroshima if you count deaths by radiation poisoning and long-term cancer.

And Truman could only laugh because he was worried the bomb might not be noticeable amongst the wreckage of Japan.

The reason for dropping the bomb was to give America a better condition amongst the international population, particularly Stalin and Russia, in the coming years. It was to make Russia afraid to invade Japan (and from there, the fear was, the rest of Asia) when they knew America had interests in it. They dropped the bomb to give them an advantage when negotiating in the future and to give them a start when everyone began arming (a situation tons of scientists warned everyone about in The Franck Report).

But don’t pretend it was about Japan. And don’t you dare pretend it was about peace.

500,000 people died and all Truman could do was laugh.

I’m rebloggjng this because of the fullness of the information-rich response (the part that actually contains facts, not the rah rah America one)

Bringing this back because it needs to be said and people need reminding.

WHY WAS I NEVER TAUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT THIS

WHY-

I-

The rage and betrayal I feel grows every day knowing I was forced to endure public “education” for 14 years.

(via pakeeztani)

my-name-is-long:

nokiaofficial:

scalematecapekind:

howtfdidevrynamegettaken:

truestfeminist:

digital-joker:

I remember this…Chick got caught cheating on her bf so he put the child locks on the car and locked the girl inside with the roaches.

No woman deserves to go through this. I dont care if she was cheating, woman are allowed to express their sexuality and this is basically slut shaming. Her boyfriend was probably awful and abusive anyway.

Man cheats = emotionally abusive swine
Woman cheats = strong woman expressing her sexuality
Got that?

CHEATING IS FUCKING CHEATING. WHEN YOU ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE, YOU DEVOTE YOUR LOVE AND SELF TO THEM AND ONLY THEM. IT’S NOT FUCKING ‘EXPRESSING SEXUALITY.’ IT’S A GODDAMN BETRAYAL OF TRUST NO MATTER WHO THR FUCK YOU ARE.

finally someone said it

But still even though she was cheating YOU DONT LOCK HER IN A CAR WITH ROACHES

Cockroaches don’t eat human flesh.

my-name-is-long:

nokiaofficial:

scalematecapekind:

howtfdidevrynamegettaken:

truestfeminist:

digital-joker:

I remember this…

Chick got caught cheating on her bf so he put the child locks on the car and locked the girl inside with the roaches.

No woman deserves to go through this. I dont care if she was cheating, woman are allowed to express their sexuality and this is basically slut shaming. Her boyfriend was probably awful and abusive anyway.

Man cheats = emotionally abusive swine

Woman cheats = strong woman expressing her sexuality

Got that?

CHEATING IS FUCKING CHEATING. WHEN YOU ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE, YOU DEVOTE YOUR LOVE AND SELF TO THEM AND ONLY THEM. IT’S NOT FUCKING ‘EXPRESSING SEXUALITY.’ IT’S A GODDAMN BETRAYAL OF TRUST NO MATTER WHO THR FUCK YOU ARE.

finally someone said it

But still even though she was cheating YOU DONT LOCK HER IN A CAR WITH ROACHES

Cockroaches don’t eat human flesh.

(via howdareyoutakemyurl)

dynamicafrica:

Today, September 8th, is the 60th birthday of Ruby Nell Bridges - a woman who, being the first black child to attend an all-white school in New Orleans in 1960, underwent a traumatizing ordeal that came to signify the deeply troubled state of race relations in America.
On her first day of school at William Frantz Elementary School, during a 1997 NewsHour interview Bridges recalled that she was perplexed by the site that befell, thinking that it was some sort of Mardi Gras celebration:
"Driving up I could see the crowd, but living in New Orleans, I actually thought it was Mardi Gras. There was a large crowd of people outside of the school. They were throwing things and shouting, and that sort of goes on in New Orleans at Mardi Gras.”
Only six-years-old at the time, little Ruby had to deal with a slew of disgusting and violent harassment, beginning with threats of violence that prompted then President Eisenhower to dispatch U.S Marshals as her official escorts, to teachers refusing to teach her and a woman who put a black baby doll in a coffin and demonstrated outside the school in protest of Ruby’s presence there. This particular ordeal had a profound effect on young Ruby who said that it “scared me more than the nasty things people screamed at us.”
Only one teacher, Barbara Henry, would teach Ruby and did so for over a year with Ruby being the only pupil in her class.
The Bridges family suffered greatly for their brave decision. Her father lost his job, they were barred from shopping at their local grocery store, her grandparents, who were sharecroppers, were forcibly removed from their land, not to mention the psychological effect this entire ordeal had on her family. There were, however, members of their community - both black and white - who gathered behind the Bridges family in a show of support, including providing her father with a new job and taking turns to babysit Ruby.
Part of her experience was immortalized in a 1964 Norman Rockwell painting, pictured above, titled The Problem We All Live With. Her entire story was made into a TV movie released in 1998.
Despite the end of the segregation of schools in the United States, studies and reports show that the situation is worse now than it was in the 1960s.
Today, still living in New Orleans, Briges works as an activist, who has spoken at TEDx, and is now chair of the Ruby Bridges Foundation.
dynamicafrica:

Today, September 8th, is the 60th birthday of Ruby Nell Bridges - a woman who, being the first black child to attend an all-white school in New Orleans in 1960, underwent a traumatizing ordeal that came to signify the deeply troubled state of race relations in America.
On her first day of school at William Frantz Elementary School, during a 1997 NewsHour interview Bridges recalled that she was perplexed by the site that befell, thinking that it was some sort of Mardi Gras celebration:
"Driving up I could see the crowd, but living in New Orleans, I actually thought it was Mardi Gras. There was a large crowd of people outside of the school. They were throwing things and shouting, and that sort of goes on in New Orleans at Mardi Gras.”
Only six-years-old at the time, little Ruby had to deal with a slew of disgusting and violent harassment, beginning with threats of violence that prompted then President Eisenhower to dispatch U.S Marshals as her official escorts, to teachers refusing to teach her and a woman who put a black baby doll in a coffin and demonstrated outside the school in protest of Ruby’s presence there. This particular ordeal had a profound effect on young Ruby who said that it “scared me more than the nasty things people screamed at us.”
Only one teacher, Barbara Henry, would teach Ruby and did so for over a year with Ruby being the only pupil in her class.
The Bridges family suffered greatly for their brave decision. Her father lost his job, they were barred from shopping at their local grocery store, her grandparents, who were sharecroppers, were forcibly removed from their land, not to mention the psychological effect this entire ordeal had on her family. There were, however, members of their community - both black and white - who gathered behind the Bridges family in a show of support, including providing her father with a new job and taking turns to babysit Ruby.
Part of her experience was immortalized in a 1964 Norman Rockwell painting, pictured above, titled The Problem We All Live With. Her entire story was made into a TV movie released in 1998.
Despite the end of the segregation of schools in the United States, studies and reports show that the situation is worse now than it was in the 1960s.
Today, still living in New Orleans, Briges works as an activist, who has spoken at TEDx, and is now chair of the Ruby Bridges Foundation.

dynamicafrica:

Today, September 8th, is the 60th birthday of Ruby Nell Bridges - a woman who, being the first black child to attend an all-white school in New Orleans in 1960, underwent a traumatizing ordeal that came to signify the deeply troubled state of race relations in America.

On her first day of school at William Frantz Elementary School, during a 1997 NewsHour interview Bridges recalled that she was perplexed by the site that befell, thinking that it was some sort of Mardi Gras celebration:

"Driving up I could see the crowd, but living in New Orleans, I actually thought it was Mardi Gras. There was a large crowd of people outside of the school. They were throwing things and shouting, and that sort of goes on in New Orleans at Mardi Gras.”

Only six-years-old at the time, little Ruby had to deal with a slew of disgusting and violent harassment, beginning with threats of violence that prompted then President Eisenhower to dispatch U.S Marshals as her official escorts, to teachers refusing to teach her and a woman who put a black baby doll in a coffin and demonstrated outside the school in protest of Ruby’s presence there. This particular ordeal had a profound effect on young Ruby who said that it “scared me more than the nasty things people screamed at us.”

Only one teacher, Barbara Henry, would teach Ruby and did so for over a year with Ruby being the only pupil in her class.

The Bridges family suffered greatly for their brave decision. Her father lost his job, they were barred from shopping at their local grocery store, her grandparents, who were sharecroppers, were forcibly removed from their land, not to mention the psychological effect this entire ordeal had on her family. There were, however, members of their community - both black and white - who gathered behind the Bridges family in a show of support, including providing her father with a new job and taking turns to babysit Ruby.

Part of her experience was immortalized in a 1964 Norman Rockwell painting, pictured above, titled The Problem We All Live With. Her entire story was made into a TV movie released in 1998.

Despite the end of the segregation of schools in the United States, studies and reports show that the situation is worse now than it was in the 1960s.

Today, still living in New Orleans, Briges works as an activist, who has spoken at TEDx, and is now chair of the Ruby Bridges Foundation.

(via misandry-mermaid)

HEY HEY YOU YOU I REALLY LIKE YOUR GIRLFRIEND

HEY HEY YOU YOU I THINK SHE NEEDS A NEW ONE

92needles:

hollowandbroken:

willwin92:

gracetrolbig:

magickowl:

myreticentvale:

Keep the flame going for those we have lost to suicide. 

why has this not got any notes 

a middle school girl commited suicide here a few days ago..she was 14..

my followers know who this is for.

It takes strength x always remember them xx

a girl named emily from my my class committed suicide on the third she was sixteen

92needles:

hollowandbroken:

willwin92:

gracetrolbig:

magickowl:

myreticentvale:

Keep the flame going for those we have lost to suicide. 

why has this not got any notes 

a middle school girl commited suicide here a few days ago..she was 14..

my followers know who this is for.

It takes strength x always remember them xx

a girl named emily from my my class committed suicide on the third she was sixteen

(via 10000steps)

itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr
itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr

itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr

(via size10plz)

siddharthasmama:

solarmetronome:

shaunadarling:

solarmetronome:

Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers. 

Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes

Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men. 
In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person.  In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour. 
In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part. 
A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today. 
Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now. 

oh, please, please, please read this commentary because this person was kind enough to give y’all a free lesson on gender roles WRT  domestic work/work in a capitalist society since we, in America, live in a masculine society in terms of work and values.

siddharthasmama:

solarmetronome:

shaunadarling:

solarmetronome:

Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers. 

Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes

Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men. 

In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person.  In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour. 

In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part.

A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today. 

Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now. 

oh, please, please, please read this commentary because this person was kind enough to give y’all a free lesson on gender roles WRT  domestic work/work in a capitalist society since we, in America, live in a masculine society in terms of work and values.

(via scenicroutes)

astronomifier:

rachelhaimowitz:

obsessionisaperfume:

deadcatwithaflamethrower:

queensimia:

palavenblues:

holy shit there is a name for it

Well damn. Explains a lot.

Suddenly I understand some of my fan base a LOT better.  That is Awesome. 

"holy shit there is a name for it" was my reaction before I even scrolled down to the comments.

I just need to keep reblogging this because I cannot even begin to tell you how profound a feeling of YES and THIS and THERE IS A WORD FOR ME OMG I get every time I see this, and I hope it helps others too.

seriously, anytime you see a post with a comment saying “theres a name for it?!” reblog that post because even if it doesnt apply to you any of your followers could be waiting for that revelation.

astronomifier:

rachelhaimowitz:

obsessionisaperfume:

deadcatwithaflamethrower:

queensimia:

palavenblues:

holy shit there is a name for it

Well damn. Explains a lot.

Suddenly I understand some of my fan base a LOT better.  That is Awesome. 

"holy shit there is a name for it" was my reaction before I even scrolled down to the comments.

I just need to keep reblogging this because I cannot even begin to tell you how profound a feeling of YES and THIS and THERE IS A WORD FOR ME OMG I get every time I see this, and I hope it helps others too.

seriously, anytime you see a post with a comment saying “theres a name for it?!” reblog that post because even if it doesnt apply to you any of your followers could be waiting for that revelation.

(via catnippackets)

bootyghost:

egalitarians-do-it-better:

sadcorgis:

thumbcramps:

here’s my new and improved amethyst. tbh i don’t even cosplay her i just am her lmao

why do white people cosplay characters of color

Why do dumbasses on Tumblr think a fictional character who is PURPLE isn’t able to be portrayed by someone of any race?

SHES FUCKING PURPLE

Why can’t white people cosplay people of color if they don’t try to wear their color as well? Is no one allowed to cosplay Nick Fury????
bootyghost:

egalitarians-do-it-better:

sadcorgis:

thumbcramps:

here’s my new and improved amethyst. tbh i don’t even cosplay her i just am her lmao

why do white people cosplay characters of color

Why do dumbasses on Tumblr think a fictional character who is PURPLE isn’t able to be portrayed by someone of any race?

SHES FUCKING PURPLE

Why can’t white people cosplay people of color if they don’t try to wear their color as well? Is no one allowed to cosplay Nick Fury????

bootyghost:

egalitarians-do-it-better:

sadcorgis:

thumbcramps:

here’s my new and improved amethyst. tbh i don’t even cosplay her i just am her lmao

why do white people cosplay characters of color

Why do dumbasses on Tumblr think a fictional character who is PURPLE isn’t able to be portrayed by someone of any race?

SHES FUCKING PURPLE

Why can’t white people cosplay people of color if they don’t try to wear their color as well? Is no one allowed to cosplay Nick Fury????

(via pakeeztani)

politicalsexkitten:

saintkathryn:

holdencaulfieldthinksuraphony:

donotruninfear:

jennaanne01:

THIS IS IMPORTANT. 

wow.. the fucking story line. speechless. 

It’s such an important time for this film to come out.

It’s so easy for the film idustry to show people we fought against in the past as real people. But it’s something new to put a face a name and a story to the people that so many of us see as the enemy.

Please watch the trailer. This’ll stir up a lot of shit with the american public but I have a good feeling about this movie.

(via wardengrey)