with a side of
and undercurrents of
with a side of
and undercurrents of
“The most intriguing duel fought between women, and the sole one that featured exposed breasts, took place in August 1892 in Verduz, the capitol of Liechtenstein, between Princess Pauline Metternich and the Countess Kielmannsegg. It has gone down in history as the first “emancipated duel” because all parties involved, including the principals and their seconds were female… Before the proceedings began, the baroness pointed out that many insignificant injuries in duels often became septic due to strips of clothing being driven into the wound by the point of a sword. To counter this danger she prudently suggested that both parties should fight stripped of any garments above the waist. Certainly, Baroness Lubinska was ahead of her time, taking an even more radical take on the (at the time) widely dismissed theories of British surgeon Joseph Lister, who in 1870 revolutionized surgical procedures with the introduction of antiseptic.
With the precautions Baroness Lubinska recommended, the topless women duelists were less likely to suffer from an infection; indeed, it was a smart idea to fight semiclad. Given the practicality of the baroness’ suggestion and the “emancipated” nature of the duel, it was agreed that the women would disrobe—after all, there would be no men present to ogle them. For the women, the decision to unbutton the tops of their dresses was not sexual; it was simply a way of preventing a duel of first blood from becoming a duel to the death.
It is humorous that most recounts of this historic event fail to mention two important things: the winner of the duel (Princess Metternich) and the reason why the women came to arms in the first place—they disagreed over the floral arrangements for an upcoming musical exhibition.”
The first rule of topless victorian ladies swordfighting club is that topless victorian ladies swordfighting club is not to be mentioned in mixed company.
The second rule is naught but an emphatic repeating of the first.
I’M TELLING YOU PINK IS HIDEOUS!
/WHIPS OUT SWORD.
TAKE OFF YOUR SHIRT. WE’RE SETTLING THIS WITH A DUEL.
Seriously some of the comments on this post are epic.
(via delicious-hiddle-morsels)Source: woa.tv
Note how the most important facet of this story is not how she swam out and physically saved two people from drowning in a riptide at the risk of her own life, but that during the course of heroic physical activity in an outfit not designed for it, a tit slipped out.
Really? A nipple? A nipple made an appearance when she was dragging her son and a woman twice her size out of strong currents?
WELL HOLY SHIT, STOP THE MOTHER FUCKING PRESS
And also using the word “suffers” like this is some huge tragedy. People suffer from things like hunger, illness, fatigue, poverty, suffering is a serious thing. Body parts simply existing is not something anybody “suffers” and clothing momentarily not covering a body part is not somehow some serious thing. This is not suffering.
^ Let us also remember that some asshole stOOD ON THE BEACH AND TOOK PHOTOS WHILE TWO PEOPLE WERE DROWNING AND DIDN’T EVEN TRY TO HELP OR ANYTHING
LIKE JFC I CAN’T SWIM WORTH A CRAP EITHER BUT IF SOMEONE’S TRYING TO RESCUE SOME DROWNING PEOPLE I WILL TRY MY BEST TO HELP FROM DRY LAND, NOT STAND THERE GAWKING AND TAKING PHOTOS BECAUSE SOME NIPPLES GOT SHOWN OR WHATEVER
BUt apparently priorities are not something that entered the
photographer’s asshole’s photographer’s mind. So you know. Totally more important to get photos of Heidi Klum than it is to make any effort to help her save a couple of people’s lives.
(And totally more important to report on how someone looked while rescuing some people, than it is to report on someone saving lives and maybe throw some pithy lines in about not swimming out too far on beaches known for producing rip tides. Because you can’t possibly save lives unless you look 100% fab the whole time!)
(via feminist-space)Source: fluffmugger
right now at this very moment i am in the lobby of my dorm witnessing two people fighting and using bible verses to back up their side.
they actually have their bibles open
IT’S TIME TO D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DISCUSS OUR BELIEFS
I ACTIVATE MY SPELL CARD, MONSTER REBORN
JESUS WILL BE REVIVED IN THREE TURNS
(via foggychristmas)Source: snowagulates
The new Jane Crow: How hundreds of pregnant women have had their rights violated & health put in jeopardy as part of the war on choice
February 4, 2013
Regina McKnight was 21 years old when she was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for homicide by child abuse—after she suffered a stillbirth eight-and-a-half months into her pregnancy.
The jury deliberated only 15 minutes before finding McKnight guilty of having committed “child abuse”—because of using cocaine during her pregnancy. She went to jail, and one appeals court after another upheld the conviction—until it was finally overturned eight years later on the grounds that the scientific evidence used to claim McKnight’s drug use was responsible for the stillbirth was “outdated” at the time of her trial.
Laura Pemberton was arrested while she was in active labor—for attempting to give birth at home, rather than undergo a C-section advised by her doctor. A sheriff strapped her legs together and took her to the hospital, where, at an emergency hearing, lawyers argued on behalf of her fetus. Pemberton and her husband were denied counsel during this hearing, though they were “allowed to express their views” as hospital staff prepared Pemberton for surgery.
These stories aren’t scenes out of some horror movie about a nightmarish future society. They are real-life accounts from the war on women and their rights that has been underway since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973.
In a new report titled “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973–2005,” the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) summarizes the experiences of 413 women who have been subjected to cruel punishments or unwanted medical procedures while they were pregnant.
No state or federal law permits the arrest or detention of women specifically due to pregnancy. Yet hundreds of pregnant women—predominantly low-income women and women of color—have had their rights taken away and their health put in jeopardy because police, prosecutors, judges and even medical personnel have claimed the authority to determine what will happen to their bodies. Lynn Paltrow, one of the authors of the NAPW study, calls this phenomenon “a new Jane Crow”—in reference to author Michelle Alexander’s best-selling examination of the mass incarceration system.
The crusade against women’s reproductive rights has been led by politicians and organizations which claim to cherish the “right to life” and champion women’s role as mothers. But the reality made painfully clear by the NAPW’s report is that the anti-choice right wants women to be treated as second-class citizens, denied the right to health care, personal liberty and the right to control their own bodies and lives.
Report authors Lynn Paltrow and Jeanne Flavin say their study understates the number of incidents of incarceration or forced medical intervention against pregnant women in the decades following Roe.
No one has attempted to compile these stories before, and records of the cases are either scattered among different sources or nonexistent altogether. Often, say Paltrow and Flavin, hospital staff impose unwanted procedures without the involvement of state authorities. Plus, the decisions of family and juvenile courts are kept confidential. So the number of victims is likely to be many times greater than the 413 cases verified by the NAPW in its rigorous study.
Nonetheless, the patterns of punishment described in the report paint a frightening picture of the consequences of the right’s campaign against reproductive freedom.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What “crimes” were committed by the pregnant women whose stories are told in the NAPW report?
In the cases the report documents, women were most often targeted not for attempting to end a pregnancy, but for attempting to carry one to term. The main reason for arrest and detention was drug use during pregnancy, but in other cases, women were punished because they suffered from sexually transmitted diseases or mental illness while pregnant. Others wanted to deliver at home, refused C-sections or failed to access prenatal care.
In several cases, women were charged with one or more felonies after they suffered a miscarriage or attempted to end a pregnancy on their own. And in one case, state prosecutors used the fact that a woman had refused an offer of sterilization in support of its charges. This case, in particular, strikes an old and deep wound, following decades of forced sterilizations of Black, Latina, Native American and immigrant women.
In all, just over half of the women whose stories are collected in the report are Black. Nearly three quarters of those facing legal charges were represented by indigent defense.
African American women have suffered a long legacy of barbaric discrimination—from the separation of families under slavery to the early 20th century eugenics movement that pushed through laws in 32 states allowing the sterilization of women judged “unfit to breed.”
Today, poor Black single mothers are scapegoated for all manner of social problems. In particular, the war on drugs has served as a vehicle for the attack, with drug convictions serving as the excuse for terminating parental rights of incarcerated mothers.
Meanwhile, the media have whipped up a moral panic over drug use during pregnancy. Thus, cocaine was the drug most often associated with the criminal charges against pregnant women documented in the NAPW report. But health professionals now recognize that cocaine use during pregnancy poses no more significant risk to fetal health than poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care or other factors commonly suffered by the poor.
In fact, in most of the cases documented in the report, authorities didn’t claim that fetuses had been harmed, only that there was a risk of harm. And even when actual harm was alleged, in most cases, there was no scientific evidence or expert testimony to substantiate the claim.
For example, Geralynn Susan Grubbs, a 23-year-old woman in Alaska, was threatened with 30 years imprisonment and therefore pled guilty to a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide in connection with the death of her two-week-old infant. Prosecutors claimed that drug use during pregnancy had caused the infant’s death—this allegation was allowed to stand even after an autopsy revealed that there was no connection between the death of the child and fetal drug exposure.
Such punishment flies in the face of the recommendations of the medical community. Organizations like the American Medical Association have concluded that criminalizing drug use by pregnant women only discourages women from seeking prenatal care and assistance with their addiction.
Nonetheless, Paltrow and Flavin document how threats of arrest or loss of custody lead some pregnant women with drug problems to avoid medical attention, prenatal care and hospital deliveries altogether. In one particularly absurd case, 34-year-old Alma Baker was prosecuted for dealing drugs to a minor—after she gave birth to twins who tested positive for THC, a chemical found in marijuana. Baker stated that if she realized the risk of criminal charges, she would not have gone to her doctor at all.
Alma Baker is white, which makes her case highly unusual among those documented in the NAPW report. Women of all races use drugs at rates roughly equivalent to their numbers in the overall population—yet overwhelmingly those questioned, screened and punished for drug use related to pregnancy were African American.
(via stfusexists)Source: thepeoplesrecord
- I’m sorry but how the fuck did this photo even happen
- the photographer must have been like a fangirl
- she would’ve been like
- okay uh yeah jensen take off your shirt
- now could you like… uh… yeah just unbutton your pants
- yeah that’s good
- make sure that fly is nice and open
- and now could you just lie down on the hood of the car
- like that
- but put your arms out now
- okay perfect
i fixed it for you guys
Oh. My. Chuck.
I JUST LOVE THIS FANDOM SO MUCH JESUS FUCKING CHRIST MOVE OVER, LUCIFER IS TAKING THE WHEEL.
“Proof” updated version.
STOP IT I’M FREAKING OUT
I am both scared and excited
LET’S NOT FORGET THE FUCKING DALEK EYESTALK THAT WASHED UP IN FLORIDA
Or the Utah Cave Painting resembling the TARDIS~
let me repost this again
Not to mention the fact Mars is full of water.
Ladies and gentlemen, Gallifrey
Remember those things the Master had? So:
Crack in time?
So now I’m just gonna sit down and wait.
i just nearly fell down the stairs running to tell my dad that the doctor is real and that the internet has proof…
let’s not forget about this painting that has been made in 1959.It looks like Amy and Rory who actually lived somewhere around that time
(via cooler-than-bowties)Source: gallifrey-feels
Alternative title: FUCKING CATHOLICS
Savita Halappanavar had originally presented to the hospital on 21 October complaining of severe back pain. She was found to be undergoing a miscarriage; however, the foetus remained inside her body and a foetal heartbeat was detected. As Savita became ill and her condition deteriorated over the following days, she reportedly repeatedly asked for the foetus to be removed.
However, the foetus was not removed until 24 October – almost three days from when Savita was first admitted to the hospital – after the foetal heartbeat had stopped.
Immediately afterwards Savita was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicaemia. She died four days later on Sunday 28 October.
The woman herself wasn’t Catholic, so in a move so hypocritical I’m getting whiplash just thinking about it, HELLO forcing your beliefs on other’s!
(via lycanpedia)Source: atheismfuckyeah
I’m listening to it
MASS EFFECT FEELS
FFFFFFFFFF I DIDN’T EVEN THINK OF THE PARALLELS BEFORE WHAT AM I EVEN DOING SERIOUSLY