cellule de crise
Archive
Message
Follow
Random
Back to top

les gens qui disent au jour d’aujourd’hui franchement vous voyez le problème non

Laura Henno, Land’s end, On Hold, 2010

pppookkk said: Are you stupid or just dumb. The gazans started this whole escalation by killing people and then taking it too far after one of their citizens was killed. If another country fired one rocket at America it would cause world war 3 but in Israel there were negotiations and attempts to stop an invasion of gaza while rockets were being fired into Israel. The only solution was a ground invasion of gaza which has killed people from both sides The main question is why are you defending the aggressor?

owning-my-truth:

The growing [Zionist] violence culminated in Israel’s ruthless 1947-49 “War of Independence,”in which at least 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were expelled from their homes by numerically superior Israeli forces – half before any Arab armies joined the war. This massive humanitarian disaster is known as ‘The Catastrophe,’ al Nakba in Arabic

Zionist forces committed 33 massacres and destroyed 531 Palestinian towns. Author Norman Finkelstein states: “According to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War… acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’[…]

Over the 60 years since Israel’s founding on May 14, 1948, this profound injustice has continued. Palestinian refugees are the largest remaining refugee population in the world.

1.3 million Palestinians live in Israel as “Israeli citizens,” but despite their status as citizens, they are subject to systematic discrimination. Many are prohibited from living in the villages and homes from which they were violently expelled, and their property has been confiscated for Jewish-only uses. In Orwellian terminology, Israeli law designates these internal refugees as “present absentees.”

In 1967 Israel launched its third war and seized still more Palestinian (and other Arab) land[…]

Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip – the final 22% of mandatory Palestine – and began building settlements for Jewish Israelis on land confiscated from Palestinian Muslims and Christians. It has demolished more than 24,145 Palestinian homes since 1967. In 2005 Israel returned Gazan land to its owners, but continues to control its borders, ports, and air space, turning Gaza into a large prison, where 1.5 million people are held under what a UN Human Rights Commissioner described as “catastrophic” conditions.

Over 7,000 Palestinian men, women, and children are imprisoned in Israeli jails under physically abusive conditions (many have not even been charged with a crime) and the basic human rights of all Palestinians under Israeli rule are routinely violated. Some prisoners tortured by Israel have been American citizens. In the violence that began in fall, 2000 through Feb. 5, 2009, Israeli forces killed 6,348 Palestinians; Palestinian resistance groups killed 1,072 Israelis. Israel’s military, the fourth most powerful on earth possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons.

American taxpayers give Israel more than $8 million per day. Congress gives far more money to Israel than to all of sub-Saharan Africa put together. In its 60 years of existence, Israel, the size of New Jersey, has received more U.S. tax money than any other nation.

Source

gummo1997:

Me: fun and chill, also relatable
you: James from twin peaks

(via bienenkiste)

"A woman from the audience asks: ‘Why were there so few women among the Beat writers?’ and [Gregory] Corso, suddenly utterly serious, leans forward and says: “There were women, they were there, I knew them, their families put them in institutions, they were given electric shock. In the ’50s if you were male you could be a rebel, but if you were female your families had you locked up."

— Stephen Scobie, on the Naropa Institute’s 1994 tribute to Allen Ginsberg (via fuckyeahbeatniks)

nietpassend:

Puje, 13 years old, reindeer territory in northern Mongolia, by Tim Walker for Vogue December 2011

Anonymous said: So you're basically saying female better do things your way or no way? I'm sorry but if a female feels empowered by looking hot because hey maybe it gives her confidence then why the fuck not. They aren't telling everyone else to do it and you're just acting fucking ignorant and sexist by putting females down and basically telling them what to do.

gentle-insomnia:

This message doesn’t really make any sense I feel like you don’t have much knowledge of feminism or didn’t read the post properly ahhh I’m just going to answer this in dot points

  • I am a feminist duh 
  • That post is a critique of what is known as “white feminism” which is really white middle class women’s feminism that pretty much only focuses on the sexual liberation of white women (which is important but not the crux issue of feminism lbr) and completely ignores the struggle of WoC and trans women and women that are not rich / well off…… 
  • Like yes of course it’s great if a woman feels empowered if she shaves / wears make up / heels etc etc but like… you have to think CRITICALLY, why are you really doing that? There’s NO escaping the fact that shaving / make up / heels etc were acts born of patriarchy and about constructing a female beauty standard for the pleasure + power of men.
  • Through those doing those things to empower yrself you are playing to the Patriarchy, even if it empowers you are an only empowered thru USING the Patriarchy when really the aim of feminism should be the DISMANTLING of the Patriarchy and the total disregard of that…   
  • The point the post made about “Hot Girls Only Club” is so important, like this branch of feminism that is all about wearing make up to seduce men / have power over men has sort of turned feminism on its head like by wearing make up to get men / feeling empowered by the attention to men it’s like perpetuating male validation in a weird way. It disregards all the women that don’t do that as well, like there is SO much more attention for white girls that are wearing eyeliner / red lipstick as a feminist statement than there is for WoC that are being badasses and not shaving / not wearing make up and are really upholding the fuck you attitude to beauty standards. I’m just saying…
  • Lastly, 2 clarify, I don’t think it’s bad if women do wear make up or do shave but I think if you’re a woman and you do do those things you have to think critically about why you do. Like for example I wear very basic make up, and I do it because I honestly feel obliged to look good / cute / whatever because I’m a woman and it’s fucked but I’m insecure and I fall prey to male validation! I’ve just started to not shave  / not give a fuck about how feminine I look and at least I feel better about that aspect… 

Huuu I agree with the post you have reblogged but some things are bothering me in this answer…

You seem to think femininity has only one meaning and one context. but like… first even if you’re a cis het white woman, doing feminine things isn’t always using/agreeing the patriarchy: a lot of women who are in a position of power right now (especially in politics/economy: Angela Merkel, Christine Lagarde, Dilma Rousseff…) don’t display a feminine image, and are shamed when they do (Angela Merkel receiving bad comments when she wears a dress, Cécile Duflot (french minister) being whistled at and cat-called at the Assembly because she was wearing a floral dress, etc.) These women don’t look absolutely masculine or butch but don’t really look feminine, because we teach women that power=masculinity and patriarchy never takes you “seriously” when you’re obviously feminine, you have to be slightly masculine or at least “neutral”.

It’s true that femininty is born of patriarchy, but the actual space we have to navigate in this definition of femininity is very limited. In amount and in form, there’s only a very small part of femininity that is deemed acceptable, especially if you’re a WoC, if you’re queer, trans or disabled. It’s a very powerful statement to express femininity outside of the standards it was created for. The whole femme aesthetic relies on the classic feminine features being distorted and exagerated, or simply placed out of context (that is, out of the cis het white traditionnaly beautiful girl context), and that has absolutely nothing to do with ~~pleasing men~~ and ~~fitting into patriarchy~~. (look at the views of Arabelle Sicardi on make up for example). I don’t think it’s true that there’s absolutely no escaping of patriarchy in femininity, cause the definition of femininity that’s accepted by patriarchy is very limited and only accepted in a very precise context. Any expression of femininty outside of that context can be challenging. I don’t think femininity is always the easiest way to go, and I don’t think people expressing it are automatically praying for or even receiving male validation.

Bien de Familia #28 (2009), by Maria José D’Amico
Bien de Familia #10 (2009) by Maria José D’Amico
jaozi:

カンペール sandals

les gens qui disent caucasien au lieu de blanc arrêtez franchement arrêtez

punacceptable:

fun prank: teach girls from an early age that their entire worth lays in how pretty they are, then make fun of them for being “”“superficial”“”

(via girlsgetbusyzine)

Reblog if you are a woman who is offended by the lyrics in Blurred Lines

carryonstarkid:

I will be writing a sociological research paper about the effects of the lyrics in Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines.

Please reblog this if you are a female who finds the lyrics of this song offensive or upsetting.

The equal post for men can be found here and for nonbinary/genderqueer here.

(via theriotmag)