ichigoocakeu:

アイスキャンディー  



over the past week i got a bunch of a new followers so i just wanted to say—hiiii! hope you enjoy your stay.

i’m pretty much only following back lesbians so if i can’t discern whether or not you are one, i probably won’t follow back unless we have a lot of other interests in common. i’m more interested in having a lesbian feminist perspective on my dash these days.

that also goes for some people i’ve unfollowed. if you post a lot of queer theory/post-modernist/third wave feminist stuff i’d rather not see you on my dash. um also if you’re a straight dude i’m not in a mutual follow with…why are you here??



ew i h8 confrontation it’s super gross



Anonymous asked: In what sense was Harvey milk a republican?

the-hairy-heterophobe:

liketheghost:

autismgender:

Okay, I was wrong about that, his Wikipedia page says he was a Democrat. And he did support a lot of good causes when he was on the city council in San Francisco. I think what stuck in my craw about that one post was that it seemed to imply that he was some sort of fiery radical queer when in fact he was in many ways the Dan Savage of his time because he wrought a lot of divisions in the people who initially supported him, and then there are things like this:

Milk, however, took advantage of the opportunity to illustrate his cause that public perception of gay people would be improved if they came out of the closet. He told a friend: “It’s too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that ca-ca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms.”

It just seems like he won a lot of appeal by playing to people’s stereotypes and being conciliatory. I’m often loath to call people assimilationists but that’s what he strikes me as.

do you seriously not understand that we’re talking about the 1970s, when coming out was a much bigger deal than it is now, much more dangerous and much more rare, and that it actually was important for people like Harvey milk to come out precisely because most straight people had never knowingly known any out gay people, much less looked up to - or voted for! - an openly gay person?

the reason why it’s much easier for many people to be out now is that people like harvey milk dared to be out. calling him an “assimilationist” for acknowledging the disgusting homophobic assumptions many people made about gay people - and still do, but to a far greater extent in the 70s - and risking his career and eventually losing his life to change that, is as appalling as it is ahistorical. God help us all.

#he literally lost his life to the work he did to change your fucking lives you ungrateful wangs







lesbolution:

straight feminist: its so homophobic when straight guys say “no homo”. masculinity is so fragile!

straight feminist: ugh just because i have short hair and im a feminist doesnt make me a lesbian!!!!







Madonna was perceived as somehow more important and interesting, more clever and cerebral. Her sense of irony and play with sexuality made her more appealing to postmodernists than Janet’s socially conscious sincerity. In 1989, Madonna was named “Artist of the Decade” by Billboard and MTV. Since that time, the appreciation gap has only widened. In 2008, Madonna was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In spite of her trailblazing career, Janet has yet to receive the same honor.


The Nation That Janet Jackson Built - The Atlantic

Janet forever.

(via notalexus)



going to the discotheque, getting high and getting wrecked



Anonymous asked: Why do you have issues with eating

toxicwinner:

think it’s cos im a girl raised on earth



lesbolution:

straight women: feminism isnt about lesbians :// not all feminists are hairy man hating dykes ugh. *excludes lesbians and ignores lesbian issues*

lesbians: *fight for female reproductive rights and birth control even though it barely effects us*



vidrulfr:

pixiepienix:

farxistmeminism:

so the pres of a feminist org that i’m in is srsly offended that some people in the group r openly “man-haters” because it creates an “unwelcoming atmosphere.” 

what kind of inclusive feminist space are we creating if we shun women who have been abused, hurt, or exploited by men 2 the point of hating them? 

men: must feel welcome

women: only welcome if they also make men feel welcome

A+ feminist organisation there gee

Well.. yeah! Feminism isn’t a “All-female” group! It’s about equality, where everyone should feel welcome. If someone have been hurt so bad by a certain group of the human race that they hate them so immensely they make them feel unwelcome when trying to join, then they should get help.

I’m not saying these women are crazy or something, or women should please every man, but it doesn’t help to fight for EQUALITY when you want every man to burn in the pits of hell.

except that feminism should be an “all female” group. women absolutely have the right to organize without the presence of our oppressors. also, your tags are gross. it should be obvious why “feminazi” (that’s the word you were looking for) is an awful term.


CREDIT