disneyisinmyblood
misogyny-mermaid:

Ooooooh snap!

When I was growing up I loved Disney, but I got really into Buffy, Xena and Sailor Moon when I was a tween.  They taught me that you can be powerful, successful, sexy, smart and a badass — as long as you were beautiful.
Fat girls don’t get to be those things.  We don’t get to be the heroine.  We are relegated to sidekick at best and villain at worst.  Sometimes as a fat, slightly queer lady I feel like the world is a series of doors slamming in my face. Everything seems to shout "THIS IS NOT FOR YOU".  Every store.  Every ad.  Every book.  Every movie.  Every comic.  Every music video.  Every television show.
Everything I ever loved.  Everything I ever paid for.  Everything I have ever spent my hard earned cash to acquire or experience has had a “This isn’t for you, fattie.” message on it.  Either explicitly (clothing stores, all things “beauty” or “sex” related.)  Or implicitly—  Only thin girls get to save the world.  A fat girl could never be the hero.  After all, to be a heroine you need to have strength and if you were strong you would have willed that fat right off your body.   Heroines are sexy with epic romances - and who could believe anyone could fall madly in love with a fat girl?
Smarter, more educated people than me have talked about why representation matters.  Particularly with race and sexuality.  After all, our media are not only reflections of our true desires, but many would say, our true selves. 
And the fat, the queer and the dark skinned have no place to be our true selves or true desires because it is impossible to have anything good attached to those particular defects, apparently.
And if the lessons are the only things that matter - then why not have a queer or fat princess?  If the pretty faces, the dresses and the romances were not the important parts, then there would be no reason to not have a fat/queer/dark/ or even *gasp* unattractive looking princess.


The Doll Test
The Doll Test today
 

misogyny-mermaid:

Ooooooh snap!

When I was growing up I loved Disney, but I got really into Buffy, Xena and Sailor Moon when I was a tween.  They taught me that you can be powerful, successful, sexy, smart and a badass — as long as you were beautiful.

Fat girls don’t get to be those things.  We don’t get to be the heroine.  We are relegated to sidekick at best and villain at worst.  Sometimes as a fat, slightly queer lady I feel like the world is a series of doors slamming in my face. Everything seems to shout "THIS IS NOT FOR YOU".  Every store.  Every ad.  Every book.  Every movie.  Every comic.  Every music video.  Every television show.

Everything I ever loved.  Everything I ever paid for.  Everything I have ever spent my hard earned cash to acquire or experience has had a “This isn’t for you, fattie.” message on it.  Either explicitly (clothing stores, all things “beauty” or “sex” related.)  Or implicitly—  Only thin girls get to save the world.  A fat girl could never be the hero.  After all, to be a heroine you need to have strength and if you were strong you would have willed that fat right off your body.   Heroines are sexy with epic romances - and who could believe anyone could fall madly in love with a fat girl?

Smarter, more educated people than me have talked about why representation matters.  Particularly with race and sexuality.  After all, our media are not only reflections of our true desires, but many would say, our true selves. 

And the fat, the queer and the dark skinned have no place to be our true selves or true desires because it is impossible to have anything good attached to those particular defects, apparently.

And if the lessons are the only things that matter - then why not have a queer or fat princess?  If the pretty faces, the dresses and the romances were not the important parts, then there would be no reason to not have a fat/queer/dark/ or even *gasp* unattractive looking princess.

The Doll Test

The Doll Test today

 

zephyroh

A Simplified Guide To The Sexualities

  • Homosexual: sexual attraction to houses and other building like structures.
  • Heterosexual: an undying lust for Macklemore.
  • Asexual: attraction to any and all things beginning with the letter A.
  • Pansexual: a desire for pots, pans, and other kitchen utensils.
  • Polysexual: sexual attraction to polygons.
  • Bisexual: Attraction to the 9th century Chinese army officer Bi Shiduo.
  • Demisexual: Never ending love of demi lovato
anscathmarcach

anscathmarcach:

People who don’t even work or shop at Hobby Lobby complaining about the situation as if it somehow affects them

image

There is something called a legal precedent

From WiseGeek:

Legal precedent is an existing legal ruling. Legal precedent comes from case law, or past judicial decisions and cases. Precedent is binding, unless overturned by a higher court.

In the United States, much of the law is made and interpreted by judges. This judicially made law, or common law, is valid unless the legislature overrules it. Case law can involve interpretations of statutes or other legislation, interpretation of the constitution, or decisions on a case in which no statutory law directly implies.

When a judge issues a decision on a case, that case becomes legal precedent. This means that any following cases will follow the precedent set forth in that case. People can look to precedent to guide their behavior, and lawyers can look to precedent to estimate how a case will turn out, and to make arguments for or against a particular legal interpretation.

The United State’s Court system has a strong respect for precedent. The legal doctrine of stare decisis dictates that precedent will be followed in future court cases. Stare decisis, a Latin phrase, means “to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.”

There are two types of precedent in the United States: binding and persuasive precedent. Binding precedent is precedent that must be followed. Persuasive precedent refers to interpretations of the law that can suggest a course of action, but that legally do not have to be followed.

When a court within a jurisdiction issues a ruling, it is binding precedent on all other courts within that jurisdiction that are at the same level or lower. For example, if a district court in California issues a ruling on an issue or interprets a law, all California District Courts, and all lower California courts must follow that precedent.

Persuasive authority, on the other hand, refers to an interpretation from a court that is not obligatory. Persuasive authority can come from decisions in another jurisdiction. For example, a Washington court’s interpretation of a law is not binding on a California court, but it can be persuasive.

At times, legal precedent can be changed. It can only be changed, however, by a court at the same level that created it, or at a higher level. The Supreme Court, for example, can overrule a district court case, at which point the legal precedent set forth in the district court case is no longer binding.
This means that past rulings inform future ones.  By the highest court in the land deciding that Corporate rights trump individual rights, this sets a legal president for the rights of Corporations legally trump the rights of actual individuals.
Furthermore, someone not upset that people in their community are being controlled and coerced by a religiously-minded corporate entity:
Someone who thinks they have the right to decide on whether someone is worthy of medical care:
Someone so ignorant they don’t know that the pill does not work for everyone and some people need an IUD:
Someone who does not know that the morning after pill DOES NOT CAUSE AN ABORTION:

inothernews

In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products.

Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights.

Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.

As I suspect many readers will find this as hard to believe and digest as I, the data can be confirmed by reviewing the company’s 2012 Annual Report of Employee Benefit Plan as filed with the Department of Labor.

Mother Jones via Forbes, "Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion and Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Exemption."

I know this is a few months old, but worth bringing it back again.

(via inothernews)