tamorapierce

I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -

Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.

Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.

If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.

And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.

timemachineyeah (via ask-pauli-amorous)

Eat THAT, hormone-snipers!

(via tamorapierce)
tamorapierce

mycatsneezeslikealot asked:

if men and women should have equal rights then why are you against men wanting rights? feminism isn't about women being better then men is it?...

fuckyeahcourtneystodden answered:

im against men complaining about wanting ‘mens rights’ because it’s never about wanting anything other than to silence and talk over women.

if men’s rights activists worked to open crisis centers for male victims of abuse and survivors of sexual violence i would love that. if men’s rights activists worked toward support and parenting classes and education for single fathers that would be amazing. if men’s rights activists worked toward educating fellow men on practicing safe sex and consent i would be so on board. if men’s rights activists worked toward breaking down the chains of racism of their brothers of colour i would be so happy. if men’s rights activists advocated for anything of value i would be so down for it all.

instead men’s rights activists sit on the fucking internet talking over women and attempting to silence them and their oppression with arbitrary add-ons, bullshit about the friendzone, and useless fucking nonsense.

so no. i have zero use for men’s rights activists because it’s never about advocating for things men need and instead it’s always about making sure women shut up about what they need. they aren’t “men’s rights activists” they’re “anti women activists”. point blank.

finally feminism is not about women being better than men nor is it about being equal to men. feminism is about women being liberated from men. i have no desire to be considered “equal” to the system of power that allows men to abuse, murder, and rape us. i want liberation from patriarchy and men.

tamorapierce:

w3f3k:

This

This.  Equality, not the right to talk over women.  Friendship, not “if you don’t date me just because I want you to then you’re putting me in this fakey space where you use me.”  Rape, not “there are plenty of false accusations of rape and I know a guy who was falsely accused.”  If men are abused, instead of talking about it, care for the abused.  Build shelters and job centers for GT youth and the boys who are discarded by certain religious movements.  Do things for men, don’t whine about wanting women to do things for you.

diamondot

If you’re poor, the only way you’re likely to injure someone is the old traditional way: artisanal violence, we could call it – by hands, by knife, by club, or maybe modern hands-on violence, by gun or by car.

But if you’re tremendously wealthy, you can practice industrial-scale violence without any manual labor on your own part. You can, say, build a sweatshop factory that will collapse in Bangladesh and kill more people than any hands-on mass murderer ever did, or you can calculate risk and benefit about putting poisons or unsafe machines into the world, as manufacturers do every day. If you’re the leader of a country, you can declare war and kill by the hundreds of thousands or millions. And the nuclear superpowers – the US and Russia – still hold the option of destroying quite a lot of life on Earth.

So do the carbon barons. But when we talk about violence, we almost always talk about violence from below, not above.