neverthesamegirl

I honestly don't know

02 Oct

wwonderful:

what the fuck is wrong with u people if a person wants to wear a grandpa sweater and a flowercrown while drinking a pumpkin spice latte fucking let them live their life the last thing they probably need is your broke judgmental ass giving them hella negative vibes cause you don’t like their life choices bye

(Source: animericans)

01 Oct

(Source: ihavetofart)

01 Oct

ydrill:

Cats in love

01 Oct lorelaicubed:

this says it all :’)

lorelaicubed:

this says it all :’)

01 Oct

septvms said: I think miss Watson is trying to use her privileged position in a positive way for something she believes in, which I think is actually something she should be congratulated on, I don't think at any point she comes off as thinking she knows most about the subject or is best suited to the role, and actually asks 'why' she is there, maybe it is not her fault she was picked but the heforshe org ? but she's using her high profile position to speak out about something that's actually important

ibt-w:

Some people have been reblogging my post saying similar things, and all seem to have the impression that I was/am criticising Emma Watson. This kind of isn’t about her. I quite like her. It’s a little bit bigger than that. The idea that feminism need be popularised, de-fanged, cleaned-up so as to feel non-threatening and appealing to both men and the women who wish to appease them, is the issue.

If Emma Watson wants to use her high profile to champion a cause she feels strongly about, that’s swell. But she spoke at the U.N.. She Spoke at the U.N. about feminism, and her speech completely depoliticised feminism. Feminism is a political movement, it’s not just a word that can be attached to anything or anyone that looks as if it/they might care to end sexism. The purpose of Emma Watson’s speech, of Emma Watson being invited to deliver it, was to give feminism a make-over with words like “fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop,” and, “We don’t want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.” Her brand of feminism, the popular kind, is not feminism at all because it is male-focused, image-conscious, weak and ultimately meaningless for women. And don’t forget that “man-hating” is code for “lesbian”, so she might as well have said, “Don’t worry, feminists are still fuckable!” ‘Feminism’ that distances itself from lesbians or any ‘threatening’ or otherwise unappealing women in order to appease men is not feminism. It’s complete rubbish.

Emma Watson was the one who was given the opportunity to address the U.N. on the subject of feminism, which she clearly knows little about. My concern is over the fact that there are women who could have spoken in her place and delivered a galvanising speech that made every man uncomfortable, that made women everywhere stop and think, that made everyone open their eyes a little, that made every leader in the room squirm in their seat. Feminism is not supposed to be popular or easy for men to embrace because it is by nature challenging to men. That’s what makes it a political movement. If you strip a political movement of its politics, it becomes nothing. And ‘nothing’ is not going to end misogyny.

tl;dr: An important question to ask is this, I think: why is it important that high profile women, rather than feminist writers or activists, speak about feminism? I think the answer, for some, is that their doing so makes feminism popular and easier to digest, which they view as a positive thing. The second question we should ask ourselves, then, is this: why does feminism need to be popular and digestible, and what are the consequences of this for feminism as a political movement?

01 Oct

whatbethsays:

yes but consider this for your otp:

  • being reunited after surviving the zombie apocalypse unknowing if the other was alive or dead AU
  • rescuing their partner from a recon mission gone wrong AU
  • drama school rivals being cast as romantic opposites because they have “crazy sexual tension” according to their director AU
  • "are we both robbing the same house oh fuck" AU
  • growing up together in a rough neighbourhood AU
  • mutual friends always dragged to the same inane barbecues AU
01 Oct

Elements: Books Coffee Beer

(or as I would call it: Paradise exists!).

265 Main Street. Biddeford, Maine 04005. Facebook

(Source: bookporn)

30 Sep

flitterling:

Lavender (Provence, France) by Jochen Sand

(Source: bit.ly)

30 Sep

(Source: insidethebookreader)

30 Sep
  • me: i don't even care. i'm not going to talk about this anymore.
  • ...
  • me: and you know what else? [2000 word rant]
30 Sep

cosmiccophine:

am i the only one who gets insanely depressed about the fact that the actresses who play the clones don’t get to joke around with each other on set and hang out after they’ve finished filming and be best friends for life because they are literaLLY THE SAME PE RSON 

30 Sep hazardousenvironments:

#wow someone made a wikipedia page abt my life

hazardousenvironments:

30 Sep

"Judging people you don’t know for things you don’t understand is just really stupid."

(Source: ironmcn)

30 Sep
There’s always a bit of a lull between finishing one book and beginning the next. It may be brief, but it can last days if the book you just finished was perhaps a particularly powerful, resonant one. But alas, we all come to that moment when we cast a glance at our to be read stack, stand before our bookshelves, scan our Kindle, or swipe through our Audible accounts and ask ourselves that age-old question: what book should I read next?

How do you choose what to read next? Here are four methods for finding that next right book to dive into. (via bookriot)

30 Sep

mythaelogy:

[READHe was always better with words than I