Showing posts tagged women's rights.
x

ROBOTS, FISH, etc.

Ask me anything   My Art   My Cosplays   Commissions   NEW FOLLOWER READ-ME   

Lo. Likes fish, robots, necromancy, and long walks on the beach. This is my moodboard.
For more info about me or feminism or whatever, check out the Read-Me page.

Professional-er Art Blog || Aquapunk || Transcostumers

twitter.com/CoronAndCo:


    How to Judge Whether Something is Sexist

    womenaresociety:

    I have a rule of thumb that allows me to judge - when time is pressing and one needs to make a snap judgment - whether some sexist bullshit is afoot. Obviously it’s not 100 percent infallible but, by and large, it definitely points you in the right direction.

    And it’s asking this question: “Are the men doing it? Are the men worrying about this as well? Is this taking up the men’s time? Are the men told not to do this, as it’s “letting our side down”?

    Almost always, the answer is: “No. The boys are not being told they have to be a certain way. They’re just getting on with stuff.”

    It was the “Are the boys doing it?” basis on which I finally decided I was against women wearing burkas. Yes, the idea is that it protects your modesty and ensures that people regard you as a human being, rather than just a sexual object. Fair enough. But who are you being protected from? Men. And who - so long as you play by the rules and wear the correct clothes - is protecting you from the men? Men. And who is it that is regarding you as just a sexual object, instead of another human being, in the first place? Men.

    Well. This all seems like quite a man-based problem, really. I would definitely put this under the heading “100 percent stuff that the men need to sort out.” I don’t see why we’re suddenly having to put things on our heads to make it better.

    -Caitlin Moran, How To Be a Woman

    Wow this is complete horseshit

    — 1 year ago with 26 notes
    #feminist  #feminism  #quote  #quotes  #sexism  #sexist  #sexual object  #objectify  #objectification  #burka  #burkas  #double standard  #women's rights  #women's issues  #double standards  #gender  #free  #freedom  #human rights 
    The Wages of Ideology (Does Mitt Romney Support Equal Pay for Women? Doesn't Look Like It.) →

    womenaresociety:

    Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is struggling to fight off a determined effort to replace him in an extraordinary recall election scheduled for June 5. The original reason more than 900,000 Wisconsinites signed petitions to get him out of office was his signature on a bill that stripped most public employees of their collective bargaining rights. But, every few weeks, Mr. Walker provides new grounds for becoming the third American governor to be removed by his own electorate.

    The most recent came last week, when he signed the repeal of a 2009 law allowing the victims of wage discrimination to pursue damages in state court, which is generally easier than filing a federal complaint. The principal reason for the original law was to narrow a significant gap in compensation between men and women. At the time the law was passed, women earned an average of 75 cents for every $1 men earned; by 2010, after the law was passed, the average for women had edged up to about 78 cents.

    By closing off this important avenue to state courts to women, Mr. Walker was acceding to the lobbying demands of business groups, including hotel and restaurant trade groups that employ large numbers of women in low-paying jobs and do not wish their wage scale to be challenged in court. (He called it a “gravy train” for trial lawyers.) That’s the kind of thing he’s been doing since he took office in 2011, and it’s an important reason why he was warmly embraced during the Wisconsin presidential primary last month by Mitt Romney, who won that state.

    “I applaud your governor,” said Mr. Romney, who also called him a “hero” and a “man of courage.” Mr. Romney’s campaign has its own problems with issues of pay equity. On Wednesday morning, his staff could not answer a simple question about whether Mr. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first federal law signed by President Obama, in 2009, which makes it easier for women to sue for pay discrimination.

    A few hours later, the Romney campaign put out a bland statement saying he supports pay equity and “is not looking to change current law.” But many elements of the Republican Party are eagerly looking to change the law. If Mr. Romney is elected and a Republican-led Congress presents him with a bill overturning the Ledbetter act, would he sign it, following the path of his hero, Mr. Walker? That question went unanswered, just as the campaign never said whether it supported Mr. Walker’s repeal.

    The Romney campaign sent out several statements on Wednesday from Republican women making the misleading claim that women had been disproportionately hurt by Mr. Obama’s economic policies. That concern lacks credibility, considering that several of those women voted against the Ledbetter act, including Representatives Mary Bono Mack and Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

    Mr. Romney has also said he wants to “get rid of” Planned Parenthood, just as Mr. Walker ended state financing for nine Planned Parenthood clinics in Wisconsin last year. Mr. Romney’s disregard for the welfare and leading concerns of women is costing the presumptive Republican nominee support among women.

    He may try to roll back these positions toward the center for the general election this fall, but voters should be skeptical. As Mr. Walker’s actions show, they are at the core of Republican ideology.

    *The 75 cents per dollar statistic is relevant to white men and women only.

    — 2 years ago with 9 notes
    #scott walker  #mitt romney  #women's rights  #injustice  #women's health  #equal pay  #lily ledbetter fair pay act  #fair pay  #equal rights for women  #equal rights  #planned parenthood  #ideologyr  #republicanr  #republicans  #discrimination  #romney  #romney campaign 
    womenaresociety:

Violence Against Women Act Divides Senate
With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.
The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.
Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence.
“I am furious,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. “We’re mad, and we’re tired of it.”
Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women’s issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday.
Some conservatives are feeling trapped.
“I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”
The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.
Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.
Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions.
“Obviously, you want to be for the title,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. “If Republicans can’t be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative.”
The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month.
As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats’ timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration’s contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing some employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds.
*Click link above to continue reading

    womenaresociety:

    Violence Against Women Act Divides Senate

    With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.

    The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.

    Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence.

    “I am furious,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. “We’re mad, and we’re tired of it.”

    Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women’s issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday.

    Some conservatives are feeling trapped.

    “I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”

    The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

    Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.

    Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions.

    “Obviously, you want to be for the title,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. “If Republicans can’t be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative.”

    The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month.

    As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats’ timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration’s contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing some employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds.

    *Click link above to continue reading

    — 2 years ago with 12 notes
    #republicans  #women  #war against women  #democrats  #contraception  #women's rights  #protection  #law  #domestic violence  #senate  #conservatives  #female senators  #harry reid  #violence  #violence against women act  #immigration  #controversy  #new york times  #lisa murkowski  #jeff sessions  #politics  #stalking  #same-sex couples  #gay couples  #roy blunt  #michael d crapo  #obama  #president obama 
    womenaresociety:

Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Birth Control
The Senate on Thursday upheld President Obama’s birth control policy, voting to kill a Republican effort to let employers and health insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives and other items they object to on religious or moral grounds.
 
The 51-to-48 vote illustrated a sharp divide between the parties and brought to the Congressional forefront the social issues that have roiled the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Over four days of debate, Democrats accused Republicans of infringing on women’s rights and focusing on issues long settled while Republicans accused Democrats of threatening religious freedom and violating the Constitution.
“The Senate will not allow women’s health care choices to be taken away from them,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.
The politically charged fight heated up last month after the Obama administration unveiled its policy requiring health insurance plans to offer free contraceptives for women — a rule that provoked furious criticism from Roman Catholic institutions and some other religious groups. The administration quickly offered a revision that would force the health insurers — not the institutions — to bear the cost.
Still, Senate Republicans tried to seize on the uproar surrounding the administration rule and offered a Senate proposal that would allow a broad exemption for employers, framing it as a matter of conscience as much as contraception.
“The president is trampling on religious freedom,” said Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska.
Democrats saw the issue tilting politically in their favor in recent days and forced the Senate vote even as some Republicans indicated unease about pressing the matter. One Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, joined 48 Democrats and two independents in opposing the plan, days after she announced she was retiring from the Senate. Three Democratic senators — Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — voted for the proposal, along with 45 Republicans. Mr. Casey and Mr. Manchin are up for re-election this year. Mr. Nelson is retiring.
Despite the vote, Congress is not done with the contraception debate. Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that House Republicans also wanted to protect religious employers who object to the requirement for contraceptive coverage.
“It’s important for us to win this issue,” Mr. Boehner said. He did not offer any details about a legislative path forward, but hinted that it would differ from the one tried by Senate Republicans.
Illustrating the political power of the issue, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, moved quickly on Wednesday to clarify a comment that he was against the Republican plan by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. Mr. Romney said that he had misunderstood the question and that he supported Mr. Blunt’s proposal. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. weighed in on the issue during a visit to Iowa State University on Thursday, saying that the administration plan was “screwed up in the first iteration” but that the compromise was the correct approach.
In the Senate, Democrats, defending the new health care law, said the Republican proposal went far beyond contraception and would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected.
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said Republicans were attacking women’s health care as part of “a systematic war against women.”
Mr. Blunt offered the proposal as an amendment to a highway bill. Under the proposal, health insurance plans and employers could refuse to provide or pay for coverage of “specific items or services” if the coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.”
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to reject the proposal. “The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss,” Ms. Sebelius said.
*Click above link to continue reading. Please CLICK HERE to take 10 seconds to thank your senators for voting to protect women’s health & urge them to keep up the fight.

    womenaresociety:

    Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Birth Control

    The Senate on Thursday upheld President Obama’s birth control policy, voting to kill a Republican effort to let employers and health insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives and other items they object to on religious or moral grounds.

    The 51-to-48 vote illustrated a sharp divide between the parties and brought to the Congressional forefront the social issues that have roiled the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Over four days of debate, Democrats accused Republicans of infringing on women’s rights and focusing on issues long settled while Republicans accused Democrats of threatening religious freedom and violating the Constitution.

    “The Senate will not allow women’s health care choices to be taken away from them,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.

    The politically charged fight heated up last month after the Obama administration unveiled its policy requiring health insurance plans to offer free contraceptives for women — a rule that provoked furious criticism from Roman Catholic institutions and some other religious groups. The administration quickly offered a revision that would force the health insurers — not the institutions — to bear the cost.

    Still, Senate Republicans tried to seize on the uproar surrounding the administration rule and offered a Senate proposal that would allow a broad exemption for employers, framing it as a matter of conscience as much as contraception.

    “The president is trampling on religious freedom,” said Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska.

    Democrats saw the issue tilting politically in their favor in recent days and forced the Senate vote even as some Republicans indicated unease about pressing the matter. One Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, joined 48 Democrats and two independents in opposing the plan, days after she announced she was retiring from the Senate. Three Democratic senators — Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — voted for the proposal, along with 45 Republicans. Mr. Casey and Mr. Manchin are up for re-election this year. Mr. Nelson is retiring.

    Despite the vote, Congress is not done with the contraception debate. Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that House Republicans also wanted to protect religious employers who object to the requirement for contraceptive coverage.

    “It’s important for us to win this issue,” Mr. Boehner said. He did not offer any details about a legislative path forward, but hinted that it would differ from the one tried by Senate Republicans.

    Illustrating the political power of the issue, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, moved quickly on Wednesday to clarify a comment that he was against the Republican plan by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. Mr. Romney said that he had misunderstood the question and that he supported Mr. Blunt’s proposal. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. weighed in on the issue during a visit to Iowa State University on Thursday, saying that the administration plan was “screwed up in the first iteration” but that the compromise was the correct approach.

    In the Senate, Democrats, defending the new health care law, said the Republican proposal went far beyond contraception and would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected.

    Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said Republicans were attacking women’s health care as part of “a systematic war against women.”

    Mr. Blunt offered the proposal as an amendment to a highway bill. Under the proposal, health insurance plans and employers could refuse to provide or pay for coverage of “specific items or services” if the coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.”

    Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to reject the proposal. “The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss,” Ms. Sebelius said.

    *Click above link to continue reading. Please CLICK HERE to take 10 seconds to thank your senators for voting to protect women’s health & urge them to keep up the fight.

    — 2 years ago with 41 notes
    #senators  #senate  #vote  #women's rights  #healthcare  #women's health  #controversy  #birth control  #contraception  #health insurance  #religion  #moral  #catholic  #olympia j snowe  #olympia snowe  #mitt romney  #joe biden  #barbara mikulski  #roy blunt  #kathleen sebelius  #obama  #obama administration  #patty murray 
    Women’s PAC formed following abortion legislation →

    truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

    A group of women has formed a new political action committee to recruit and support candidates to defeat elected officials who back the ultrasound and so-called personhood bills.

    Women’s Strike Force, which boasts several former elected officials, formed after Virginia spent last week in national headlines for its attempt to require women to undergo mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion.

    “As a former member of the General Assembly and Virginia’s first woman in Congress, I fought for women’s rights in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s,” Leslie Byrne said in a statement. “We must move the commonwealth and the nation forward, not backslide to denying women rights.” […]

    (via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

    — 2 years ago with 214 notes
    #feminism  #women's rights 
    periodp00ps:

subconciousevolution:
 
Breastfeeding Moms Stage “Nurse-in” Protests at Target Stores

 
(CBS) Should breastfeeding be allowed in public? The oft-debated  controversy that pits moms against retailers and nosey onlookers reached  a fever pitch yesterday when women across the country protested Target  by holding “nurse-ins” at more than 100 stores in 35 states.
“Feeding your baby is nothing to be ashamed of,” North Texas nursing mother Angela Jackson told CBSDFW.com during a nurse-in. “I feel like asking someone to move to feed their baby is basically segregation.” 
The nationwide protests began because of an incident on Nov. 28, when  Michelle Hickman of Houston sat on the floor of the women’s clothing  department and began breastfeeding her infant who had just woken up  hungry. Despite covering herself and the baby with a blanket, two female  employees came over to her and asked her to move and threatened her  that she’d get a ticket.
Hickman legally had a right to breastfeed in public, so when she  called Target to voice her complaints, a representative told her despite  her rights, Target is a “family friendly public place” with different  policies than what’s legally permitted, and suggested Hickman shouldn’t  “flaunt” her feeding publicly.
Hickman organized a nurse-in for December 28, 2011. At the 11th hour, Target replied that  it has a long-standing policy in support of breastfeeding in stores,  and that the company would work to educate its team members on the  store’s policies.
The letter was too little too late in the organization’s mind, so the nurse-in went on as planned. From Houston - where the incident took place - to Philadelphia to San Jose, moms across the nation brought their babies to Target stores to feed them in public.
“It’s going to take a couple of generations before it’s a non-issue,” one nurse-in organizer, Kelly Roth, told Time.  “Our ultimate goal is for people to not notice that anything is  happening, just like with breathing or speaking or a baby taking a  bottle.”
Read the Article here.

    periodp00ps:

    subconciousevolution:

    Breastfeeding Moms Stage “Nurse-in” Protests at Target Stores


    (CBS) Should breastfeeding be allowed in public? The oft-debated controversy that pits moms against retailers and nosey onlookers reached a fever pitch yesterday when women across the country protested Target by holding “nurse-ins” at more than 100 stores in 35 states.

    “Feeding your baby is nothing to be ashamed of,” North Texas nursing mother Angela Jackson told CBSDFW.com during a nurse-in. “I feel like asking someone to move to feed their baby is basically segregation.” 

    The nationwide protests began because of an incident on Nov. 28, when Michelle Hickman of Houston sat on the floor of the women’s clothing department and began breastfeeding her infant who had just woken up hungry. Despite covering herself and the baby with a blanket, two female employees came over to her and asked her to move and threatened her that she’d get a ticket.

    Hickman legally had a right to breastfeed in public, so when she called Target to voice her complaints, a representative told her despite her rights, Target is a “family friendly public place” with different policies than what’s legally permitted, and suggested Hickman shouldn’t “flaunt” her feeding publicly.

    Hickman organized a nurse-in for December 28, 2011. At the 11th hour, Target replied that it has a long-standing policy in support of breastfeeding in stores, and that the company would work to educate its team members on the store’s policies.

    The letter was too little too late in the organization’s mind, so the nurse-in went on as planned. From Houston - where the incident took place - to Philadelphia to San Jose, moms across the nation brought their babies to Target stores to feed them in public.

    “It’s going to take a couple of generations before it’s a non-issue,” one nurse-in organizer, Kelly Roth, told Time. “Our ultimate goal is for people to not notice that anything is happening, just like with breathing or speaking or a baby taking a bottle.”

    Read the Article here.

    (via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

    — 2 years ago with 457 notes
    #breastfeeding  #women's rights 
    brosephstalin:

Three Women Jointly Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
(CNN) — Women’s rights took center stage Saturday at the Nobel ceremonies as three women recognized for their struggles against the backdrops of the Arab Spring and democratic progress in Africa accepted this year’s peace prize.
Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and Leymah Gbowee, a social worker and peace campaigner from the same country, shared the prize with Tawakkul Karman, an activist and journalist who this year played a key opposition role in Yemen.
The three were chosen for their non-violent struggle against injustice, sexual violence and repression.
“Ever since the Norwegian Nobel Committee made this year’s decision known, the people of Norway have looked forward to seeing you on this stage,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
“You give concrete meaning to the Chinese proverb which says that ‘women hold up half the sky,’” he said. “We thank you for the hope you awaken in us all.”
Jagland said the work of the three laureates should serve as warning to dictators even as more civilians were killed Saturday in Syria.

    brosephstalin:

    Three Women Jointly Receive the Nobel Peace Prize

    (CNN) — Women’s rights took center stage Saturday at the Nobel ceremonies as three women recognized for their struggles against the backdrops of the Arab Spring and democratic progress in Africa accepted this year’s peace prize.

    Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and Leymah Gbowee, a social worker and peace campaigner from the same country, shared the prize with Tawakkul Karman, an activist and journalist who this year played a key opposition role in Yemen.

    The three were chosen for their non-violent struggle against injustice, sexual violence and repression.

    “Ever since the Norwegian Nobel Committee made this year’s decision known, the people of Norway have looked forward to seeing you on this stage,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

    “You give concrete meaning to the Chinese proverb which says that ‘women hold up half the sky,’” he said. “We thank you for the hope you awaken in us all.”

    Jagland said the work of the three laureates should serve as warning to dictators even as more civilians were killed Saturday in Syria.

    (via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

    — 2 years ago with 220 notes
    #women's rights  #feminism  #news 
    "We expected this kind of action from the Bush administration, so it’s doubly disheartening and unacceptable that this administration chose to follow this path. We had a major opportunity to improve young women’s access to contraception, which is the best way to reduce the need for abortion, and the Obama administration missed the mark."
    — 2 years ago with 50 notes
    #disappoint  #breaking  #women's rights 

    mohandasgandhi:

    unwindher:

    Member of the Ukraine feminist group Femen gets arrested for protesting topless in the Vatican. 

    My grandmother, a woman who has been to nearly every country in the world, was thrown out of the Vatican several times for having her knees exposed and being a woman. She kept returning as a sign of protest of the sexism the Vatican ardently reinforces in their policies.

    The woman above is amazing.

    (via socialistexan)

    — 2 years ago with 16552 notes
    #feminism  #women's rights  #fuck the  #vatican 
    "

    I am over the passivity of good men. Where the hell are you?


    You live with us, make love with us, father us, befriend us, brother us, get nurtured and mothered and eternally supported by us, so why aren’t you standing with us? Why aren’t you driven to the point of madness and action by the rape and humiliation of us?

    "

    Eve Ensler, “Over It” (via pluralisms)

    They are over in the corner, whining about how we only date assholes.

    (via squeetothegee)

    This quote is everything I needed today

    (via erikawithac)

    (via womenaresociety)

    — 2 years ago with 862 notes
    #eve ensler  #quote  #over it  #feminism  #feminist  #rape  #violence against women  #motherhood  #violence  #women's rights  #support  #passive  #passivity