Supertonic Sound Club featuring Dave Barker - Scheherazade 


posted 2 weeks ago with 0 notes
Well, you want to because you sort of have to.

Well, you want to because you sort of have to.


"Vegans only care about animals and not people which is why I dismiss veganism" 

fatassvegan:

There is not a limited amount of cares in my heart. I will not run out of cares because I care about animals. I have found that most people who become vegan do so because they care. Period. About humans and animals and the planet we live on.

Don’t use this weak ass argument as an excuse to toss…

I think it’s quite legitimate to “care” more about whichever cause you like. I’m not saying a vegan shouldn’t care about feminism, as in think that it doesn’t matter, but it might not be their thing. I wouldn’t condemn somebody for not being particularly interested in any kind of social justice issues, not everyone is an activist. If animal rights is your thing I don’t think you’re obligated to spend any of your time on any other cause. That’s your passion, so go for it.  People tend to get more things done when they specialise anyway, though if you’re interested in multiple causes that’s great too!


posted 4 months ago with 78 notes
- via fatassvegan

mgkesi:

Saw an article about this and found the video on Youtube.  A cat saves a child from an attacking dog. 

WARNING:  Graphic wound photos at end.

Reading the comments on this video has made me very angry. They’re basically all expressing the same sentiment of ‘wow great cat! Hope that horrible dog is put down!!!’. 

People are just so quick to judge animals when they have absolutely zilch clue about them. It’s ridiculous how they’re just heroicising one animal and vilifying another. One is worthy of our respect and worship, while another deserves to die, based on ONE incident.  If it had been the other way round, the story would be the same, of course. People just assume what they want from some small piece of information and make ridiculous, rash judgements about it because that’s all animals are worth. It’s only when they act in a way suitable to human ideals that they’re worthy of any consideration, like this cat.

The cat saved the boy, so we automatically project romantic human ideas on to it like ‘heroic’, ‘brave’, ‘protective’ and so on.  Despite this humanisation of the cat, the dog did something that displeased us so it’s just nothing, it’s just dirt.  How does that even make sense?

The dog’s owner obviously needs to be more careful, but who knows that it wasn’t an accident that it was let out? Who knows this dog’s circumstances and why he attacked this kid?  No more than we know the cat’s, who may have just acted out of being territorial, or some other non-romantic reason.  Animals are NOT the same as humans and they never will be. They are worthy of being alive in their own right, not just when they please us.

People just see what they want to see, and consider animals at their disposal to cater for every little whim.


posted 4 months ago with 460 notes
- via mgkesi

"When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is generally something wrong with her sexual nature."  -

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886)

Just a friendly reminder that Nietzsche was rampantly sexist, regularly called women who didn’t submit to men “barbarous”, “charmless”, “mediocre”.

If you’re a woman with scholarly inclinations that lead you to adoring Nietzsche, just recall that he would have probably told you his age’s equivalent to “shut up, get back in the kitchen, and make me a sandwich”

(via soycrates)

it was incredibly difficult for me to get through ‘beyond good and evil’ for this reason. in the middle of talking about something really interesting, he just fucking decides ‘i haven’t interrupted this with a sexist rant in a while’ and talks about how women can’t do philosophy because of their docile nature or some shit

like he wasn’t even just casually misogynistic like most people in the 1800s. he actively made a point of pushing his misogyny every fucking chapter. what the fuck dude

(via its-not-a-fedora-its-a-trilby)

even more reasons to hate Nietzsche

(via libraryseraph)

most of the more famous philosophers, such as Aristotle, were heavily misogynistic

(via softhomura)

Okay, so this has been gaining a lot of notes again (a quotation I posted a while ago) and while I’m glad people are interested in knowing, I’m really pissed that people reblog it with the comment above that sas “most famous philosophers are misogynistic, like Aristotle”, because

1. No, the fame of the philosopher does not at all correlate with how misogynistic they were. Famous philosophers like Hannah Arendt, J.S. Mill, Foucault and others were more female-friendly than the average public of their time. And they are extremely well-known.

2. Can you show me anything that proves Aristotle to be sexist? His opinion on women was hundreds of years ahead of his time. Considering the time period, I should think that some students of philosophy would even consider him to be early feminist roots. 

The fact that people are reblogging this as a sign of “all famous philosophers are sexist” is just so fucking wrong, and I’m sad I had any part in enabling such sentiment. Just because one philosopher is obviously a sexist shitbag doesn’t make them all sexist.

(Also, anyone who believes nihilism necessarily leads to sexism is daft)

I think Aristotle was pretty sexist. Women couldn’t be citizens and belonged to men. Even Plato thought women could even be warriors, even if they were slightly ‘weaker’ they were essentially the same as men (in nature at least).  Aristotle found it absurd that Plato suggested women should share the same tasks as men. Plato even realised that he may be limited by his own cultural bias on the topic, and said that we often laugh at things until we try them and realise that they work out fine (like women becoming warriors). I think Plato was more feminist than Aristotle and given that he’s older than Aristotle I think it’s fair to say that Aristotle is quite sexist.  But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t ahead of his time, or that all philosophers suck for being sexist/racist/homophobic by today’s standards.

But some cross the line from it being a cultural limitation to just being hateful, like Nietzsche.  Arendt and Foucault are from the 20th century!  Of course they’re feminist - I think most philosophers are ahead of their time but not necessarily by centuries, or in every regard. I’d expect any mid-20th century philosopher to be pretty feminist.


Spinach-Lemon Drizzle Cakes
I needed to use up lots of spinach I had that was starting to wilt. These may not be the prettiest cakes ever but they were really moist and fluffy :) I love them!!! They have a very unique taste but it doesn’t taste spinach-like.  I simply adjusted a vegan lemon drizzle cake recipe.
Recipe:
250g self-raising flour
180g margarine
160g soft brown sugar
Few handfuls of spinach, pureed (I blended a little less than a cup of water with 4 or 5 handfuls of spinach)
2 - 3 lemons
180g Icing sugar
Few spoonfuls of golden syrup (optional)
Method:
1.  Sieve flour.  Mix with sugar and the zest of one lemon.
2.  Melt the margarine.  Squeeze the juice of the lemon in, then add to flour mix.
3. Add spinach puree.  Beat with electric mixer.  Add some golden syrup now if you wish.
4. Pour into cupcake cases or lined brownie tin.  Cook on 180 degrees for 20 minutes.
5. For the icing, whisk the icing sugar and juice of 1 or 2 lemons together.  Pour over the slightly cooked cake or cupcakes and even out with a spatula.  Grate some more lemon rind over the top.
I used a brownie tin and it filled that perfectly; I’d say it makes between 12 - 16 cupcakes.

Spinach-Lemon Drizzle Cakes

I needed to use up lots of spinach I had that was starting to wilt. These may not be the prettiest cakes ever but they were really moist and fluffy :) I love them!!! They have a very unique taste but it doesn’t taste spinach-like.  I simply adjusted a vegan lemon drizzle cake recipe.

Recipe:

250g self-raising flour

180g margarine

160g soft brown sugar

Few handfuls of spinach, pureed (I blended a little less than a cup of water with 4 or 5 handfuls of spinach)

2 - 3 lemons

180g Icing sugar

Few spoonfuls of golden syrup (optional)

Method:

1.  Sieve flour.  Mix with sugar and the zest of one lemon.

2.  Melt the margarine.  Squeeze the juice of the lemon in, then add to flour mix.

3. Add spinach puree.  Beat with electric mixer.  Add some golden syrup now if you wish.

4. Pour into cupcake cases or lined brownie tin.  Cook on 180 degrees for 20 minutes.

5. For the icing, whisk the icing sugar and juice of 1 or 2 lemons together.  Pour over the slightly cooked cake or cupcakes and even out with a spatula.  Grate some more lemon rind over the top.

I used a brownie tin and it filled that perfectly; I’d say it makes between 12 - 16 cupcakes.


fashionable-gamer:

Ever notice how when justifying a child’s misbehavior no one ever says stuff like “girls will be girls” or “she’s a girl”, but the list of things a “young lady” can’t do is almost endless?

You learn from a young age that masculinity comes with freedom; femininity comes with restrictions.

I think people do say ‘girls will be girls’ about teenagers and such, but in general I agree that the phrase ‘boys will be boys’ sucks. It’s justifying boys being aggressive, violent, bratty, misogynistic, even cruel etc. from a young age, in one fell swoop.  But boys being boys is no more inherent than girls being girls, which is something we’ve realised in the last few decades is mostly a load of toss.

It’s a sucky phrase indeed.

Boys are restricted in other ways, though. Masculinity may come with more freedom than femininity, but masculinity is a horrible restriction in itself. Not all boys want to be boys, remember!

Also, I always felt as a kid that young girls did have greater freedom in some respects. Girls were allowed to be ‘tomboys’ (although they had to carry the label) and be interested in masculine things if they wanted, even if it wasn’t initially encouraged. Boys playing with Barbies was never a thing, however. 


Women do not have to: 

clemlin:

vegankatie:

  • be thin
  • give birth
  • cook for you
  • have long hair
  • wear makeup
  • have sex with you
  • be feminine
  • be graceful
  • shave
  • diet
  • be fashionable
  • wear pink
  • love men
  • be the media’s idea of perfection
  • listen to your bullshit
  • have a vagina

This is very true, but it’s important to remember that if a woman is feminine, graceful, shaves, diets, wears make up, or does any of these things in the list, it doesn’t make her a slave to patriarchy or any less of a feminist than you.

BLESS.

Pretty much nobody says that women HAVE to be these things. They mostly say ‘they should’ or ‘they’d look better if’ or ‘it’s weird that’ or ‘I personally don’t like that in a girl but’.

Most preferences are socialised too.  It’s not enough for people to accept that girls don’t have to be like this, but that these can be positive things and that you can still like them and be attracted to them despite what you’ve been taught to believe you like, want or require in a woman.

Kind of like ‘oh I’m just not attracted to non-white people. I’m not racist, they’re not my type’. Most of the time this isn’t really true and if you remove this conditioned ‘block’ from your mind, you’d surprise yourself! 


Some drawings… I really need a scanner, things look terrible in photos :( I can’t finish anything properly, grr. It’s so difficult working without an undo button.


How do people get their smoothies to look these beautiful colours? It’s such a lie. The smoothie I’m currently drinking:

Yes, it looks like greyish poo. :’(  What do I do wrong?!

How do people get their smoothies to look these beautiful colours? It’s such a lie. The smoothie I’m currently drinking:

Yes, it looks like greyish poo. :’(  What do I do wrong?!