"We quickly located a firefighter costume for boys, complete with a bright red jacket, a traditional helmet and an axe. The girls’ version, on the other hand, is a skin-tight, short, shiny dress that’s surely flammable. It includes a fascinator (in lieu of a helmet) never before seen on a real firefighter.

The model on the package, who looks to be about the same age as my daughter, completes the outfit with heeled, calf-high boots — not ideal for running into burning buildings, or trick-or-treating for that matter. The costume is for children four to six and it’s one of several provocative costumes for the age group.

Even the pumpkin costume for preschoolers is sexy: it’s sleeveless and features a black bodice with an orange ribbon that laces up the front like a corset. I found the girls’ firefighter and the police officer costumes the most offensive, as they hung on the rack in stark contrast to the boys’ versions.

What kind of message do these costumes send to our girls? While the boys have costumes that look like the real thing, girls are expected to dress up in spoof ensembles, thus suggesting they can’t, or shouldn’t, do the real job. The costumes are not only “sexy,” they’re also sexist."

Halloween Costumes Are Sexualizing Our Youngest Trick-Or-Treaters

(via fucknosexistcostumes)

This isn’t just about halloween costumes. My incredibly petite 3 year old nephew is currently wearing a shirt for 7 year old girls. It fits him perfectly. On an actual 7 year old girl it’d be skin-tight. Even the most gender-neutral of girls clothing is sexualized and that’s not okay.

(via fuckyeahsexeducation)

"Baby, just make sure you’re doing the drugs and the drugs aren’t doing you"

– 30 year old woman I did cocaine with over the summer (via satan-clit)

"People run from rain but sit in bathtubs full of water."

Charles Bukowski (via bittersweetsongs)

Wow bukowski so profound do you also bathe fully clothed you dickhead. “Oohh isn’t it funny that a person will eat when they’re hungry but will duck if you throw an apple at their face”

(via artfucker1996)

insanity-and-vanity:

Literally me

insanity-and-vanity:

Literally me

thatseanguyblogs:

yourladydisdain:

hipstermoriarty:

mockeryd:

killbenedictcumberbatch:

peopleasproducts:

Sexism 60’s

jesus???????????????

What the fuck was wrong with men in the 60’s?

advertising is important as it’s the historian’s best resource for identifying the values of an era. but yeah, these were fucked. the 60s was generally as fucked as the 50s. people forget that. 

It literally says ‘men are better than women’ in bold type, what the fuck. I knew this was a thing, but that is a lack of subtlety I couldn’t have written into a spoof…

This is the generation that spawned most of our parents… People our parents’ age run Washington. Starting to make sense?

When you look to the past, the struggles of the present become a great deal more clear.

quesarrito1995:

tear down the idea that a feminist is anyone who vaguely supports some discombobulated liberal notion of gender equality. feminism isn’t just about “ending stereotypes,” it’s about stopping rapes, saving lives, ending discrimination that actively, consistently harms women. please stop simplifying and defanging feminism, it ultimately does harm to the movement and de-prioritizes the most important aims of it. 

"I’m sorry that I’m both your umbrella and the rain."

– Tablo (via naturaekos)

"

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

"

– Terry Pratchett, “Men At Arms”

This is one of the best breakdowns I’ve ever seen of how expensive it is to be poor. (via sosungalittleclodofclay)