Boobs are meant to feed babies. Why is that so hard to understand? I don’t even see the appeal in them. They’re just nipples with a bit of flesh behind them. Everyone has nipples, it’s nothing new.
So proud of my mother for doing her own research after I sent her that meme. A sign she hung in her car window.
Stay woke
Is this true?
Not only is it true, it gets worse. The Susan G Komen For The Cure Foundation has actually successfully sued “competing” charities, because (paraphrasing) their “message or branding was infringing.”
You read that correctly: they took money that people had donated to cure cancer, and hired attorneys with it, to sue ANOTHER group of people trying to find a cure for cancer, who, in turn, had to us their donated money to hire their own legal counsel to defend themselves.
Yeah signal boost because not enough people know about this and seriously FUCK SUSAN G. KOMEN THEY ARE THE ACTUAL WORST
Yeaaah I’m gonna go here where it states clearly THERE IS NO LINK instead of trying to google a list of possibly entirely fallacious/misinterpreted studies.
And if you really think abortion is bad and that fear-mongering propaganda should be spread get your ignorant ass out of my life because I don’t have time for that shit.
I’m freaking out I don’t usually reblog this stuff but this is like incredible
I gotta say: it’s so easy and so fashionable to go on about teh evilzzz of Barbie, it’s practically Baby’s First Feminism.
But let’s have a look at this reissue of a doll that came out in 1965
Astronaut Barbie. Came out in 1965. Before the moon landing and long before the first woman into space.
What I do think is hilarious is I’ve been hearing rants about teh evilzzz of Barbie since… well since I took my first one out of her box. Aboutwhat a bad influence her figure is on little girls. Well since they wanna play that card (and the deck seems to be nothing but that card)
Well how comes they never want to talk about this chap?
I’ve never seen these feminists talk about Ken. How Ken is nothing more then a disposable beefcake, who is as much as an accessory and an afterthought to Barbie’s adventures as her handbag or her heels. (Actually it seems like Barbie’s wardcrobe and all the accessories she comes with probably rank far higher in her priorities then her poor prettyboy schlub of a boyfriend.) Ken’s defining trait is that… he is attractive. Has a great chest. Looks good in a suit. That’s about it. If he ever goes into space, it’s because Barbie deigned to let him hitch a ride on the rocket. Barbie is a three dimensional, independant woman who is far more then a pretty face. She can be a doctor, a scientist, a vet, a teacher, an astronaut, a lawyer… hell she’s even run for president…
All I’m saying is that, why do these feminists constantly go on about how Barbie ruins young girls self esteem, but never ever mention that by their own logic, Ken represents a similar unrealistic beauty standard for boys and young men, that by their own logic, is similarly foisted upon young girls to expect in their men? Ken is every bit a fantasy representation of male beauty as Barbie is to female beauty, just with none of the characteristics that render Barbie as a three dimensional, indapendant, finanially successful career woman, something she has been since 1959? Barbie has never been portrayed as anything other then someone who marches to the beat of her own drum, unlike Ken who is just a disposable pretty boy who is as much an accessory to Barbie’s lfiestyle as her tippy toe shoes. Barbie’s no trophy wife or sugar baby.
Ken on the other hand…
I’m just saying since feminists want to play that card like beheading your Barbie is the training bra of feminism (before you graduate onto Disney Princesses at least)
I am Silver Tongue, I am an artist. I have many characters and you can check out my art in the art tag. I occasionally practice witchcraft though I don't do anything too complicated. I am girl 2 and don't know what else to put here.
