fieldbears:

lydiduh:

In 15 seconds of dialogue Francis Wilkerson sums up what’s wrong with how women are criticized in our society and it’s great

I literally remember when this aired and something clicked in my head. He was putting to words what I kept seeing over and over in media without apology or explanation

(via reverseracism)

fieldbears:

lydiduh:

In 15 seconds of dialogue Francis Wilkerson sums up what’s wrong with how women are criticized in our society and it’s great

I literally remember when this aired and something clicked in my head. He was putting to words what I kept seeing over and over in media without apology or explanation

(via reverseracism)

Him: I don’t date black women. It’s just a preference.

Me: Based on what?

Him: Nothing, it’s just how I feel.

Me: Impossible, deliberate aversions come from somewhere.

Him: Its just a preference, that’s all.

Me: No, a preference is preferring broccoli to asparagus. You can say that because asparagus will always taste the same, even when prepared differently.

Him: And?

Me: And we’re not always the same at all. There are hundreds of millions of us and we’re each completely different from the next. If an employer said not hiring Black people was a preference would you agree?

Him: No, but that’s based on stereotypes.

Me: … And what is yours based on, facts?

(via lamegrownup)

Thissssss^^^^^^^^

(via neon-taco)

Oh, bitch. Read down!

(via missjia)

Oh my Lordy yes

(via bloochikin)

(via reverseracism)

iwriteaboutfeminism:

If only he had kept driving away…

captoring:

nephyria:

"asexuality is just the lack of a sex drive, or a really low one" uuhhh no. really, no. that is incorrect, you have been lied to, i’m sorry.

asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone. sex drive is your horny meter. you can still be horny and not be sexually attracted to people! similarly you can be sexually attracted to people and not be horny!! amaze

oh my god this actually clarifies so much thank you

(via fuckyeahsexeducation)

problackgirl:

i just immediately stan any successful dark skinned woman bcs you know her come up was at least 30 times harder than everyone else

(via michaela-pratt)

ethiopienne:

Poor kids who do everything right don’t do better than rich kids who do everything wrong

America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others.
That’s because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on “enrichment activities” for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.
But, of course, it’s not just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child’s formative early years. That’s why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardonexplains, “rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students,” and they’re staying that way.
It’s an educational arms race that’s leaving many kids far, far behind.
It’s depressing, but not nearly so much as this:
Even poor kids who do everything right don’t do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the above chart, based on a new paper from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s annual conference, which is underway.
Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne’er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.
What’s going on? Well, it’s all about glass floors and glass ceilings. Rich kids who can go work for the family business — and, in Canada at least, 70 percent of the sons of the top 1 percent do just that — or inherit the family estate don’t need a high school diploma to get ahead. It’s an extreme example of what economists call “opportunity hoarding.” That includes everything from legacy college admissions to unpaid internships that let affluent parents rig the game a little more in their children’s favor.
But even if they didn’t, low-income kids would still have a hard time getting ahead. That’s, in part, because they’re targets for diploma mills that load them up with debt, but not a lot of prospects. And even if they do get a good degree, at least when it comes to black families, they’re more likely to still live in impoverished neighborhoods that keep them disconnected from opportunities.
It’s not quite a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game where rich kids get better educations, yet still get ahead even if they don’t—but it’s close enough. And if it keeps up, the American Dream will be just that.

ethiopienne:

Poor kids who do everything right don’t do better than rich kids who do everything wrong

America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others.

That’s because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on “enrichment activities” for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.

But, of course, it’s not just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child’s formative early years. That’s why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardonexplains, “rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students,” and they’re staying that way.

It’s an educational arms race that’s leaving many kids far, far behind.

It’s depressing, but not nearly so much as this:

Even poor kids who do everything right don’t do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the above chart, based on a new paper from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s annual conference, which is underway.

Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne’er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

What’s going on? Well, it’s all about glass floors and glass ceilings. Rich kids who can go work for the family business — and, in Canada at least, 70 percent of the sons of the top 1 percent do just that — or inherit the family estate don’t need a high school diploma to get ahead. It’s an extreme example of what economists call “opportunity hoarding.” That includes everything from legacy college admissions to unpaid internships that let affluent parents rig the game a little more in their children’s favor.

But even if they didn’t, low-income kids would still have a hard time getting ahead. That’s, in part, because they’re targets for diploma mills that load them up with debt, but not a lot of prospects. And even if they do get a good degree, at least when it comes to black families, they’re more likely to still live in impoverished neighborhoods that keep them disconnected from opportunities.

It’s not quite a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game where rich kids get better educations, yet still get ahead even if they don’t—but it’s close enough. And if it keeps up, the American Dream will be just that.

(via fyeahcracker)

shmurdapunk:

if your mega-franchise’s “representation” consists of a doorman, a baby sitter and two sidekicks

it’s not representative of anything. especially considering the source material.

asker

fyeahlilbit3point0 asked: Nigga I'm getting reblogs from someone telling me "Pepper was the true hero of Iron Man 3!" and that "Uhm excuse me they just announced the Human Torch is black!" (which is an entirely different studio currently in a bitter struggle with Marvel LMAO).

shmurdapunk:

lmao.

1. obviously someone didn’t watch IM3 where pepper literally didn’t shit until the end

2. yeah, marvel has absolutely nothing to do with that new F4 movie and would absolutely just cast a white guy. let’s not forget that marvel is actively canceling their F4 comics and putting a moratorium on any F4 related material in order to not advertise the movie. They want that movie to tank so they can hopefully get the rights back.

the-uncensored-she:

marfmellow:

fakespacegirl:

Hate doesn’t breed hate. Hate inspires anger in victims of hatred and that anger is called hatred to delegitimize it and villainize people. If you wanna help people who are victims then first you gotta stop acting like they’re just as bad their oppressors and abusers.

BUP BUP BUP

A message to white liberals and white feminists.

(via queerandpresentdanger)