T.E.L.L. ( Trial, Error, Learn, Live)

"I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read, and all the friends I want to see." John Burrough

109,971 notes

I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -

Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.

Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.

If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.

And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.

timemachineyeah  (via arnericasinger)

"If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time. "

(via transientsanity)

Oh mi Chuy

(Source: ask-pauli-amorous, via listeningtoyoursmile)

Filed under women menstrual cycle femenism

732,930 notes

kanayahummel:

theperksofbeingdornish:

ohanameansfamily24:

-behindbars:

the-grand-highboob:

thusmylife:

b1ush:

condescendingchristian:



oh my god

As a person from California, this is 100% accurate

As a person from Michigan, this is 100% accurate

As a person from England I was so confused because I forgot you use the Fahrenheit system 

50 degrees in England 
100 degrees in England

 

I don’t know why I found the skeletons so funny, it’s almost like they’re dancing really sarcastically?

they’re british skeletons of course they’re dancing sarcastically. 

Oh mi Chuy. As a person from California that goes to school in the east coast: This is accurate

kanayahummel:

theperksofbeingdornish:

ohanameansfamily24:

-behindbars:

the-grand-highboob:

thusmylife:

b1ush:

condescendingchristian:

image

oh my god

As a person from California, this is 100% accurate

As a person from Michigan, this is 100% accurate

As a person from England I was so confused because I forgot you use the Fahrenheit system 

50 degrees in England 

100 degrees in England


 

I don’t know why I found the skeletons so funny, it’s almost like they’re dancing really sarcastically?

they’re british skeletons of course they’re dancing sarcastically. 

Oh mi Chuy. As a person from California that goes to school in the east coast: This is accurate

(Source: typicalmichiganders, via deduce-me-in-221b)

Filed under Orange County So Cal cambridge Boston east coast west coast freshman year Yup

119,976 notes

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also
Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you. 

(via guardianrock)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.

(via central-avenue)

(via moon-bunnies)

Filed under hmmm context religion jesus

230,948 notes

12-year-old girl:
I don't want kids when I grow up.
Society:
You'll change your mind when you get older. You're only 12. You're too young to know what you want.
16-year-old girl:
I'm pregnant.
Society:
How could you be so stupid? Do you know anything about safe sex? You should be ashamed.
20-year-old woman:
I'm a single mother with an infant son.
Society:
You should've gone to college first. You need a stable career before you can support a child.
33-year-old woman:
I'm married and my spouse and I both have stable careers. I have two young daughters now.
Society:
You're not staying home? Who's going to take care of them? You're just going to put them in day care while you work? That's selfish of you. You can't expect to raise decent kids with a full-time job.
45-year-old woman:
I just had my first child.
Society:
Why would you have a child when you're that old? Do you realize the health risks of being pregnant at your age? When your kid is a teenager you'll be a senior citizen. That's inconsiderate of you.
60-year-old woman:
I haven't had any children.
Society:
Your life must be so unfulfilling. Is there something wrong with you? Why didn't you want kids? How strange.

Filed under gender bias femenism pregnancy our bodies out decision