At first I read this as “hobbies that turn men ON” and I was like damn I got this down lol





Like learning how to make infinite chocolate, for instance.

I feel like this is a good time to point out the problem of trusting crowd-sourced information. Over the years wikipedia has become more reliable, but that comes at the price of it being heavily monitored—even then it frequently has errors in it.

Tumblr is not monitored. Anyone can say whatever they want, and there’s little to no consequence to saying it. That’s social media. Nobody posting here has to get a PhD in what they’re talking about; it’s all exactly as casual as posting status updates on Facebook.

This can lead to many good things, like spreading information about under-reported horrors (Ferguson, for example, would’ve been most definitely swept under the rug and forgotten if not for the combined efforts of all social media). However, it also leads to a dangerous climate for learning.

Everyone assumes that whatever they see on Tumblr is true so long as it has enough notes. Last year, for example, a text post grew wildly popular because it accused the creator of Five Nights at Freddy’s of being anti-abortion and a hardcore Christian, something which the OP heard from someone else, didn’t bother fact checking, and posted. This got out of hand quickly, with thousands of social justice-minded people reblogging and spreading the word. By the time that the real information got out, the damage had been done.

Treat Tumblr the same way that you treat wikipedia: it is a starting point. Do you see a post with NO source claiming that ___ is problematic/bad? Look it up on google. If you can’t find any non-tumblr sources, it just might be the highest form of bullshit.

Tumblr is not a place to “learn more”. Entire chunks of Tumblr are dedicated to claiming that teachers are evil for getting pissed off that you’re talking in class, or that parents are “ageist” for establishing a curfew, or yes, that you can somehow make infinite chocolate. It’s a springboard: you need to go to reputable sources with experts in the field to get the actual information.

EVEN if what you’re looking at isn’t something that is talked about at a reputable level, it is ALWAYS a good idea to look for multiple voices. If one source-less, proof-less person is spouting nonsense and literally nothing else meshes with what they’re saying, you might not wanna accept that as the truth. That’s how the anti-vaxx movement got so batshit out of control.

This so much. Also always fact check posts that are accusing someone of being problematic in xyz way. Often times slander passes for “calling out” and before anyone can say or do anything, someone is getting hate messages and death threats and/or has been doxxxed. There’s a lot of unscrupulous people on here saying shit for notes so please use discretion and withhold your trust until they’ve earned it.

What do you think are some signs to look out for when weeding out sexist men when dating?


Bad signs:

– he regularly insults women who aren’t you
– he doesn’t truly listen and engage with what you have to say
– he doesn’t acknowledge the existence of sexism
– he makes light of rape/ sexual assault
– he regularly uses words like thot, ho, slut, bitch, etc
– when angry he is physically intimidating (purposely raises his voice, stands over you, etc)
– he says things like “you can’t make a ho into a housewife” “behind every great man is a good woman”
– he expects you to clean and cook because you’re a woman
– he makes a big deal out of periods (*that’s just annoying. Grow up!)
– he is looking to build-a-girlfriend. He doesn’t want to grow with the person you currently are. He wants to mold you into his ideal.
– he doesn’t respect your wishes when it comes to your body.
– he is manipulative by saying “if you love me you will (do this thing you feel uncomfortable doing)”
– he makes a lot of gender essentialist statements and feels like he knows you just because you’re a woman (all women love roses/ diamonds)
– likes to make you jealous / pits you against other women
– exploits your insecurities (“you’d be prettier if…”)
– controlling (of your finances, looks, friends, career, or anything else)
– makes you feel bad for your relationship needs. Pathologizes them by calling you ” needy”
– doesn’t care for books written by women or music created by women
– expects you to “ride or die” supporting him but isn’t reciprocal

Good signs:

– he’s very emotionally intelligent and open
– is aware of male privilege + invested in maintaining an egalitarian relationship
– very attentive to your needs
– support is mutual (not relegated to the “nurturing” woman)
– doesn’t make you feel like you need to change/ alter yourself – accepts you as you are
– always makes you feel safe (even when and especially when he’s angry or experiencing other negative emotions)
– never physically pushy
– makes you feel honored and respected as an individual and as a woman (which encompasses a lot).

I’m sure there’s more things but this is what I thought of on the top of my head!




A bill proposed by a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri would require a woman seeking an abortion to obtain notarized consent from the baby’s father, even if he is physically abusive toward her.

The bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Rick Brattin, told Mother Jones that while the bill has exceptions for rape victims and to protect the life of the mother, women in domestic violence situations are not exempt from having to ask the father’s permission. “What does that have to do with the child’s life?” Brattin said. “Just because it was an abusive relationship, does that mean the child should die?”

In explaining the bill to Mother Jones, Brattin channeled Todd Akin, the former Republican congressman from Missouri who, during a failed 2012 Senate bid, said that women who are victims of “legitimate rape” have mechanisms in their bodies that prevent them from getting pregnant. Brattin said his bill would require a woman to be able to prove that a “legitimate rape” happened in order to avoid having to ask for a man’s consent for the abortion.

“Just like any rape, you have to report it, and you have to prove it,” said Brattin. “So you couldn’t just go and say, ‘Oh yeah, I was raped,’ and get an abortion. It has to be a legitimate rape.”

Brattin said he was inspired to introduce the bill on December 3 for the next legislative session, but it has not moved yet in the Missouri House. He said he was inspired to change the laws around abortion consent because he was required to obtain his wife’s consent before having a vasectomy.


Read proposed Bill here

Notice the complete lack of empathy for women. Notice that they ask why the fetus should be punished, but no one questions the punishment the mother would inevitably suffer if forced to carry the pregnancy and raise a child under an abusive father’s hatred. Notice that the woman is assumed to be deserving of this punishment unless she can prove that she has already been punished sufficientlyby rape or a threat to her life.

Let me repeat that: In order to prove that she does not deserve an unwanted pregnancy, a woman must prove that she has already been sufficiently punished by either rape or threat to her life. There is no option for her to prove that she is undeserving of punishment altogether. Nor is an environment of fear and abuse is not considered sufficient punishment for her, and it’s certainly not considered sufficient reason to avoid raising a child. This is how we know that forced pregnancy is about punishing women, and not about saving children.

So over this shit. I’ve been over this shit for 15 years.


While racism should be attacked, using the idea of racist coworkers as a means to justify employers controlling every aspect of an employees life including their off-hours time and their social media use puts us all at risk.

And let’s not pretend that this works both ways.  A worker who’s racist on the internet might end up being fired when it’s found out, but a manager?  Executive?  CEO?  Why are we more interested in attacking literally the lowest rung of institutionalized racism (in a way that sets a precedent for the curtailing of all worker’s rights to free speech) than those who have the power to impose their ideas on others?

Not to mention that, but I’ve seen instances of people calling out racism or other bigotry happening at their workplace online and getting fired for it. When you start promoting people getting fired for what they say online, it impacts ALL speech online that a workplace finds unsavory—and that includes progressive speech.