A Woman Can’t Raise a Man, Can She?

This whole “a woman can’t raise a man” narrative is played out, and based on an incorrect and outdated concept of classifying gender as binary. It isn’t that women CAN’T raise their sons to be men; it’s that society makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to raise a child on their own. Society promotes harmful concepts of sex and sexuality, of gender and gender roles, and of beauty, class, race, etc… Children (and adults) are bombarded with psychologically and emotionally harmful imagery and messages. Not to mention that with the super high (and ever increasing) cost of living combined with low wages, it is exceedingly—and increasingly more—difficult to financially support a child. It isn’t that women can’t raise their sons to be men—because we do—it’s that the odds are stacked against ANY single parent. Even two parent households are having extreme difficulty supporting their families. Raising children right has nothing to do with the gender of the parent(s) or the child.

Furthermore, this erroneous idea of “women being unable to raise men” is also caused by this society being patriarchal. A patriarchal society places more emphasis and importance on the father than necessary. Now, this is not to take away from the position men have in their children’s lives, because they are important. However, your importance is not where, what, nor why you think it is.

Moving on, as society progresses, so too must our ideas, values, etc. Our concept of family must change, because the old model (man, woman, and child/children) is not the only model that exists. Many family types exist, and all are deserving of acknowledgement and respect. NO family model is the best or most valid.

Yesterday a 17 year female, who attends Lancaster High School in California, was beaten by a football player, on school grounds, for being gay. After receiving over a dozen blows to her jaw, head, eye and head, all he received was a 5 day suspension by the Lancaster School District. She suffered from a fractured jaw and multiple concussions to the head and the Deputy Sheriff advised her mother to re-think her wanting to file charges against the football player because her daughter pushed him back. The school ended up documenting “assault” charges on the victims school file, NOT the football players!!! To make things worse, the Deputy Sheriff warned the victim, by saying, “Just so you know, if you file charges against him, I’m taking his side.” We’re attempting to raise awareness and bring this story to light because Lancaster High School is trying to sweep this “Hate Crime” under the rug!

sovereigncephalopod:

notxlikexdad:

giantpeepeemonster:

Reblog if you care and please forward to everyone you know. P.S. CBS, KCAL 9 news are running the story tomorrow at 10pm.

SIGNAL BOOSTING THIS SHIT

Yo fuck that shit

Decriminalize it.

I don’t smoke, but I’d like to address some things: Marijuana, weed, or whatever you wish to call it, can be—but isn’t always—habit forming. It does not cause physical addiction—unlike heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. There may be rare instances when weed causes adverse side effects, but those are very rare. Furthermore, anything can cause an adverse side effect(s) or a bad reaction: refined sugar, aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, GMOs, and MANY prescription drugs that people are more than okay with taking. Weed isn’t for everyone, but I don’t think it should be illegal or that people should be punished for using it. There’s no reason, whatsoever, for marijuana to be a schedule 1—-meanwhile, low levels of vidodin and such are schedule III (http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml). V (five) tiers or schedules, how the hell is weed ranked the same as heroin?! Researching marijuana prohibition will show you how this is racist in origin, much like the crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine laws are racist.

To be honest, I care less about legalization (except in regard to medicinal purposes), and more about decriminalization and responsible use. Decriminalization means all criminal and monetary penalties are removed. That leaves regulation and such up to local and state government rather than the federal. Federal level is what criminalized it to begin with, so I don’t feel comfortable with them regulating and controlling it. The “higher ups” are only jumping on board now—those who are jumping on board—because they’re starting to see the profit in it. They’re all about the profit and whatever other agenda they have going at the time (which is protecting the interests of the “1%,” aka rich, old White men).

There are valid arguments for both decriminalization and legalization, but I personally have not been swayed to completely support the latter.

And while on the subject, I don’t believe drug addicts should be treated as criminals for being addicts. They need help (therapy, treatment, etc), and not criminal punishment. Drug laws have been proven not to work. What addict gives a damn whether or not drugs are illegal? All this does is put them in a cycle of addiction & prison. That isn’t to say addicts should be exempt from any punishment. For example, if a drug addicted person commits a murder, they should be punished for the murder—but not the addiction or the possession of drugs. They’re sick and need real help.

paulamaf2013:

hayakata:

kropotkindersurprise:

Two ways of dealing with tear gas grenades from comrades in Turkey: Either submerge them in water. Make sure you can close off the container cause the gas will still spread for a while. Or throw them in the fire so the gas burns off before it can spread.

Wow.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST

Someone relay this message—in person—to the people in Ferguson.

Question.

If Darren Wilson’s face was so messed up from him allegedly being attacked by Mike Brown (the unarmed kid Darren Wilson murdered), why did the all the Ferguson cops remove their name tags & any means of identifying themselves? Wouldn’t a busted ass eye have been identification enough?

Politricks.

I never liked the idea that choosing not to vote means you can’t have a political opinion. Some people choose not to vote because of their political opinion(s). They don’t believe in the current system(s), so why partake in it/them? Democrat, republican, or whatever party or form of government… It matters not, because time & time again, they prove to us that they only serve the interests of the rich. Our apathy with politics is a result of our dissatisfaction and exhaustion with systems that do not work—with systems that do not serve the interests of the people.

People are apathetic about politics because they are tired of their needs not being met, and they are tired of having no representation. People are tired and people are fearful—and that’s the worst thing that could happen. Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Poli + tics = Politics is full of many ticks (bloodsuckers of the poor)

israelwc:

Palestinians launch #RubbleBucketChallenge to create awareness for suffering in #Gaza http://t.co/R8aOFpvbVc

israelwc:

Palestinians launch #RubbleBucketChallenge to create awareness for suffering in #Gaza http://t.co/R8aOFpvbVc

Men have it all wrong: Women don’t mind having purely sexual relationships. It’s the stigmatization you and your friends put on us that is the problem. It’s the lack of respect that is the problem. Women would be a lot more open-minded, if men would stop being so stupid, hypocritical, and immature.

Religion|||Government

Religion is to be separate from government. If you vote according to your religion, you’re voting to infringe on the rights of others. I am not subject to the doctrines of a religion I do not follow—no one is. For the hundredth time, this is not a theocracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy). There is no state religion. Even the Christian and deist founding fathers sought to separate the two. You have to think what is fair for the group, and NOT “what least upsets/most aligns with my Christian/Muslim/etc sensibilities?”