“A village in rural India has started a new tradition to honor girls - every time a girl is born, 111 trees are planted in celebration on the village commons! The village is located in the state of Rajasthan, a region with such a strong preference for boys that the sex ratio is now skewed to 928 women for every 1000 men. The village of Piplantri, whose tree-planting project has transformed it into a green oasis with a quarter of a million new trees planted over the past six years, is leading the way on changing attitudes on how girls are valued.

The initiative was started by the former village head, Shyam Sundar Paliwal, in memory of his daughter Kiran who died in 2007. In addition to tree-planting, the community also makes a collective investment in their girls. When a girl is born, parents sign an affidavit agreeing to educate their daughter and not to marry her until she reaches the legal age. In return, the whole community contributes to her future financial well-bring: the villagers donate 21,000 Rupees ($335) to the parents’ contribution of 10,000 Rupees ($160), all of which is deposited in a bank account that cannot be accessed until the girl turns 20 years old.

Over the six years the program has been going on, the impact on the village of 8,000 has been dramatic. In addition to making the area around the village lush and green, it has also brought economic and social benefits to the community as a whole. To help protect the trees from insects, the villagers have planted over 2.5 million Aloe vera plants around them which they now harvest sustainability to produce a variety of Aloe-based products for sale. And, most importantly, in a region with a deeply entrenched preference for boys, Piplantri is showing how honoring girls not only empowers girls and women, it uplifts entire communities.

To read more about Piplantri’s innovative program to celebrate girls in the IB Times, visithttp://bit.ly/1btMGy3″

As seen on the A Mighty Girl Facebook page

the phrase “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” when referring to women who “give it up” (i.e have sex) with a partner before establishing commitment is shitty for a couple of reasons

1. it implies that the only reason why a man would want to be committed to a woman is for sex and that men wont commit to a woman as long as shes giving him sex without making him “earn” it

2. it implies that relationships = sex

3. it enforces the whole “men only want sex” ideology which is extremely harmful

4. it implies that men get into relationships with women for the sex. and not because he genuinely likes and appreciates her as a person

5. it implies that sex is the “end goal”. and that a man is only trying to get into an established relationship with a woman so he can finally have sex with her

6. it implies that its somehow a flaw in the woman’s character if the men she wants to be with never commit to her. as if its her fault because shes having sex with them too soon, and not because maybe theyre just awful people who only want her for sex

theres probably a bunch of other reasons why but those are just the ones i can think of atm

anônimo perguntou:

More importantly, Equality is nowhere to be found in the word Feminism. When we break it down, we get the root words Femininus, and Ismus, which translate to 'To act on behalf of women'. This is why there are so many people who prefer to be called Egalitarians. When you break Egalitarianism, you get Egality, an obsolete word for Equality, and, again, ism, which translates to 'To act on behalf of equality'. If the term Feminist is more important than the goal of Equality, you've lost.

Oh for the love of the goddess I get this message numerous times every day. 

Aside from the fact that we don’t have to take all words literally, which I would have thought was obvious, but apparently not, this is why I think egalitarianism (although admittedly sometimes well-meaning) is in fact useless and actually counter productive to the goal of equality: 

Egalitarians approach the issues of inequality with the false impression that we all started off equal to begin with. This way of thinking is majorly and obviously (I should think?) flawed. 

For example, you have a rich person and a poor person. The first has multiple flashy sports cars, three homes, takes many gorgeous holidays every year, can afford all the latest gadgets, and still has cash to spare every month. The second is living on minimum wage, does not have enough money to afford/maintain even a cheap car, can barely feed their children on the small salary they are on, and is struggling to survive and provide for their family. 

If someone gave me one thousand pounds and told me to distribute this money between the two people in a way I thought was fair, I would have to give all one thousand to the poor person, because they are the one that needs it. One thousand would mean little to the rich person who earns more than that per day. It would mean a month of paying basic living costs for the poor person. 

I think most people would agree with this decision.

Now imagine the poor person is a woman in a patriarchal society and the rich person is a man. 

Women are the ones who suffer the most from gender inequality. When men are hurt under patriarchy on the basis of their gender it is because they are displaying traditionally ‘feminine’ traits or behaviour. See male rape victims, male victims of domestic abuse, men being mocked for crying, men being expected to be hyper sexual, men not being aggressive or assertive as they ‘should be’ under patriarchal gender roles and ideals. 

Once we understand that both problems stem from a lack of respect for women and a cultural attitude of demeaning and degrading them, we can better try to help the situation. 

Women are unquestionably suffering far more under patriarchy. This is not even debatable. Of course men suffer too, but this is whenever they stray from  toxic masculinity. 

Therefore, we have to support women. That is the only way the problem can be solved. We help the person in most need. This is ESPECIALLY important when in helping this person you will also end up helping everyone else! 

Back to my analogy. I would give my help to the woman who is in most need. 

Now the man might be unhappy for other reasons. In fact his wealth might even have backfired and made him unable to appreciate the little things in life. He might feel empty because he can purchase whatever he wants. 

Is his problem going to be solved by giving him more money?

Are either of the problems going to be solved by giving them the same amount of money/help/whatever the hell I’m using for this analogy? 

No, that would only further support the inequality between the man and the woman. 

He can quite easily give away his power/money if he wants. (You can see what I’m getting at here, right? That men have more power under patriarchy and therefore if it backfires on them they have an option that women don’t. To work to change it from their position of privilege.) 

Basically (and I do not know why I rambled like that it is late and I doubt I’ve been particularly articulate, but I hope you get my meaning) I believe we need to help the person in most need. Or the group in most need. 

And I don’t mean that in the sense of some misery grading system or trying to pit oppressed groups against each other. I mean in the sense that the oppressed must be supported and the privileged must not, simply because they have the power in the situation already and giving them more power only furthers the inequality. 

So I don’t believe egalitarianism will achieve equality. It’s a nice thought (from some egalitarians, although not all) but in terms of actually making progress it doesn’t stand. It won’t do anything about institutionalised inequality or cultural attitudes. 

In a situation where one group is in trouble and the other is benefiting from that, it would be morally wrong to treat both the same. It’s no good giving the privileged the same as the oppressed because they will only continue to use said privilege to further oppress and the oppressed will remain where they are forever and ever. 

(This is long and I am sorry for that. Ignore any parts where I don’t make sense. Anyone can add to this if they think they can be more coherent than me, which will not be hard.) 

Feminism is the only way to create equality/liberation/a generally nicer society. 

Egalitarianism is the easy way to be everybody’s friend and manage to achieve nothing in the process. 

support women who get abortions

support trans people who get abortions

support abortion doctors

support pro-choice activists

support pregnant drug addicts

support people who don’t react to a stillbirth they experienced the way society wants them to

support women who don’t want to be mothers

support pregnant people who don’t want their baby

support teens who get abortions behind their parents’ backs

support people who get abortions even when their partners don’t want them to

support people who want to keep their baby even when there are social pressures or people in their lives who don’t want them to

support people who go to desperate measures, even self harm or unsafe procedures, to abort the fetus

understand why and how these tragedies happen - blame the system, not the victim

support reproductive rights in all shapes and forms

no exceptions

The two charges against Patel—feticide and felony child neglect—appeared to contradict each another: If Patel killed the fetus with pills while it was still in the womb, that would suggest there was nothing she could do to save it once it was born. Nevertheless, a jury found Patel guilty of both crimes, meaning she could be facing up to 70 years in prison.

The apparent paradox at the heart of the charges against Patel is one of the reasons her case received widespread attention Wednesday. When I asked the St. Joseph County, Indiana, prosecutor, Ken Cotter, to explain it, he pointed out that according to Indiana law, a person can be guilty of feticide even if the fetus in question survives, as long as a deliberate attempt was made to “terminate” the pregnancy “with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.” (The statute includes an exemption for legal abortions.) The prosecution contended that Patel intended to kill the fetus by taking the pills (feticide) and when she failed, allowed the living fetus to die (felony child neglect).



So basically the new strategy in conservative states is to make obtaining an abortion more and more difficult and then persecute pregnant people who may have even attempted to terminate the pregnancy on their own due to the difficulty of obtaining a legal abortion. Even if they aren’t successful in doing so, they can still be charged with feticide. And if you can’t clearly ascertain that they did that, you can slam them with child neglect and claim they killed their stillborn infant.

This also means that a person who has a stillbirth could be prosecuted if there’s any evidence they did anything that could have resulted in the stillbirth—including substance abuse, which HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. Not only that, but even if you successfully give birth to a live baby that you properly care for you could be prosecuted for doing anything they determine was an attempt to terminate the pregnancy.

flowersandxpoppunkbands perguntou:

Can females be sexist. I believe they can not unless given power and are oppressing people.

You’re right, we WOMEN (pls don’t say females, it’s trans-exclusionary) cannot be sexist since sexism is the “ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.” (x)

We can, however, be prejudiced against men (and other women).

How fucked up is it that someone has to nearly beg me not to post a complimentary ask because they are afraid that their feminist followers will harass them?

How ridiculous is that?  This person is actually afraid of the amount of harassment they would receive simply due to having differing opinions.

This is what feminism does.

It makes absolutely no sense to prosecute a pregnant person for attempting to terminate their fetus illegally. Doing so is a very obvious attempt to make abortions more difficult and to punish people who get abortions any way they can. There’s no other reason a state would do this. They know that the federal law is that abortion is legal, so all they can do to fight this is pass laws that make it more difficult for a pregnant person to get an abortion in their state and then criminalize people who try to do it themselves when the law makes it difficult or impossible for them to get one.