Feminist killjoy 4 lyf. Sanctimonious vegan. Godless socialist. Warning: human and animal rights discussed here. If you disagree with my opinions, please engage in an internet discussion with me. I love those. No one ever loses!

If anyone reblogs Jennifer Lawrence’s (or anyone’s) leaked nudes on my dash, I WILL unfollow you instantly. I don’t want someone’s leaked photos which they didn’t give permission to spread on the internet splattered across my dashboard. And if you reblog them, YOU’RE part of the problem.

Posted on 2 September, 2014
Reblogged from gtfothinspo  Source a-dork-inspirit

"If you think women are crazy you’ve never had a dude go from hitting on you to literally threatening to kill you in the time it takes you to say “no thanks.”"


Kendra Wells (via belle-de-nuit)

Well this is fucking surreal

(via bigfatfeminist)

Posted on 2 September, 2014
Reblogged from theveganabolitionist  Source mysharona1987

Things that are very important to me: working towards saving animals from exploitation, suffering and death at the hands of humans and salvaging what is left of our planet’s health.

Things that are not very important to me: meat eater’s hurt feelings.

Hope that clears things up.

Posted on 2 September, 2014



Posted on 30 August, 2014
Reblogged from vegansidekick  

The doctor will never be a woman. There are plenty of women in the show that are admirable role models. I think you're just full ofsh it. Stop pushing your american views onto Doctor Who, a BRITISH show, with BRITISH values. It's unbelievable how obnoxious and hypocritical feminists are, especially you third-wave feminists. Always spouting "equal rights" but, "Can't hit me, cause I'm a girl!" You probably won't respond to this because you know I'm right and the whovianfeminism stance is weak.



This was so beautiful that I had to put it up on my wall and examine it as if it were an exquisite piece of art. 


"Manpain" by Anonymous

Above we have a quintessential example of early 21st Century prose by an aggrieved man. The author of this piece is unknown, but we can surmise by his inability to properly say “shit” to a woman and his assurance that he likes “admirable” female characters that he is most likely a “Nice Guy.”

The anonymous author employs deliberate obtuseness in order to provoke a reaction from his audience. Notice how he pretends no British individual supports the idea of a woman portraying the Doctor, despite clear evidence to the contrary, even amongst actors who have portrayed the titular character on the show. Then there is the stunning self-centeredness regarding his perception of third wave feminism; he is only interested in equality it grants him the “right” to hit the women whose arguments make him so incoherently angry that he is unable to rationally reply.

His final challenge attempts to trap the reader. Do we respond and grant him the audience and validation he so desperately seeks, or do we ignore him and let him believe he has won? But perhaps we have a third option: to turn the focus back on him and examine how his comments display his deep insecurity in his own sense of masculinity, something he feels can only be reclaimed by challenging a girl on the internet to a fight and preemptively declaring victory because he fears he cannot engage with her on an intellectual level.

a work of goddamn art oh my god

Posted on 27 August, 2014
Reblogged from misandry-mermaid  Source whovianfeminism

I wonder why vegan tumblr is so quiet on the matter of animal testing, re: ebola vaccine? It just shows how great that we have all these at the hand of scientists. There was a very preliminary vaccine that was still not in the clinical trial phase AND it saved lives. With ongoing research, Pfizer hopes to put it on the mass market next year. So please do explain in lights of the horror that is happening in West Africa, how is it that you value mice's lives over humans'?


Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this.

I am not quite sure what this “silence” is that you attribute to tumblr vegans… I can’t speak for anyone else in the community but for me personally there has been very little information released about the vaccine in its early stages and I dislike commenting on things without a good amount of information. For that reason I’m mostly going to talk about animal testing more generally here.

You are making a bit of a fallacy in this claim, in that you are assuming the only way this drug could have possibly been developed is through animal testing. The effective drugs on the market have been tested on animals, but it does not follow that these things have been effective because they have been tested on animals. I
n the UK for example, any new drug must be tested on at least two mammals to be considered fit for market. Now, that does not mean those drugs came about because they were tested on animals, they could be (and in many cases, are) the result of much more advanced and less victorian methods of testing drugs. 

It is not the case that we treat this by testing on animals or we don’t treat it at all. There are a wealth of alternatives like en vitro, test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, computerised patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, computer models and simulations, stem cell and genetic testing methods, non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans, and micro dosing, to name a few. There are many well respected figures in the bio-medical community who do not believe animal testing is in any way helpful anymore. We have undoubtedly gained a great deal from animal testing in the past, but people like Nobel-prize winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar pointed out that we will be at a point where we can dispense with animal research altogether in as few as ten years time, and that was in 1972. 

Even ignoring ethical considerations, the animal model of research is deeply flawed, 9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests still go on to fail or cause harm in clinical trials. UK based companies like Pharmagene use human tissue exclusively, not out of any ethical considerations, but because they believe that the animal testing model is scientifically redundant. Animals do not get many of the diseases that humans do, so these diseases must be artificially inducted. This simply does not give us an accurate measure of how authentically caught diseases will respond to treatment, human cell  tissue gives us a much more accurate picture. To use cancer as an example, Fran Visco, founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition said, “Animals don’t reflect the reality of cancer in humans. We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people.” As for the metholodolgy, it is widely known that animal experiments have serious limitations in that results in humans cannot be extrapolated from results in animals. A mixture of high dosage, stress conditions of animals in confinement mean there are simply too many variables to gain reliable results. Lets also look at what we actually gain from animal testing. Last year, globally, we killed 115 million animals in scientific experiments, yet the FDA approved only 35 new treatments. 115 million lives, for 35 new drugs? Does that sound like an efficient research model to you? Today’s drug companies do the actual research with computer based and stem cell models, and are simply obliged to test on animals once that process has been completed, in many cases slowing down the process rather than helping it. For every research organisation you can name me that is testing on animals, I can link you one that is having equal or superior results using non-animal models. 

What is happening in West Africa and elsewhere is horrific, but you are making a mistake if you assume that the only two options we have available are animal testing or let everyone die. I think you are guilty of a rather obvious confirmation bias here. You’re assuming because animal research has been done, that animal research is the only way it could have possibly done, with very little possible evidence to back up that claim. Animal testing is inefficient, expensive, out of date and utterly unethical. On a personal level, I absolutely do not believe that animal lives have any less inherent value than human lives. You may believe it is perfectly okay for 115 million animals to suffer every year so long as it benefits a higher number of humans, but we do not have to look very far into our own human history to see horrific examples of this cold, utilitarian idea in which it is acceptable for a minority to suffer for the good of the majority. The idea that some lives matter less than others has been responsible for some of the most horrific injustices in human history, and I do not believe this is an ethos any serious thinker should entertain.I honestly believe that at this point, the only thing we still have to learn from animal testing is the depths of cruelty that humans are willing to inflict on sentient beings. 

Posted on 26 August, 2014
Reblogged from kady-xvx  Source acti-veg



t h i s.

so real

Posted on 23 August, 2014
Reblogged from gtfothinspo  Source gradientlair

Breaking The Law! - Steve-O

Wooo! Go Steve-O you crazy mofo!

Posted on 22 August, 2014
Reblogged from serenitaaaaa77  

""Radical" means root, not extremism. Radical feminism means getting to the root of female oppression. And if freeing women from thousands of years of oppression is extreme to you, you are either an oppressor or have Stockholm Syndrome."

—  Jitana Sunflower-Rose (via staininyourbrain)

Posted on 20 August, 2014
Reblogged from vegantine  Source thentheysaidburnher

When someone tells me they’re “not political”



Posted on 18 August, 2014
Reblogged from hectichedgehog  Source campaignsick




We live in a really weird era of feminism in which we’re not allowed to criticise any oppressive constructs/industries (marriage, beauty/make up, porn, etc) just because some women enjoy them.

I’m really sick of of opinions and discussions being shut…

Posted on 17 August, 2014
Reblogged from byebyesimone  Source bitteryoungthing

Posted on 15 August, 2014

Cameron Esposito - Woman Who Doesn’t Sleep With Men

Posted on 14 August, 2014

What Christy Mack's assault teaches us about modern misogyny

"In the minds of people justifying the abuse of Christy Mack, she took something that didn’t belong to her - her body - and gave it to someone who didn’t own it. In this collective narrative, she stole from a man and he had no choice but to punish her for it. Never let it be said that we don’t practice our own versions of honour killings.”

Posted on 14 August, 2014


If you buy animal products, you support animal abuse. It’s as simple as that.


If you buy animal products, you support animal abuse. It’s as simple as that.

Posted on 14 August, 2014
Reblogged from thatvegancosplayer  Source aus-vegan

Vivid Theme by JoachimT
Powered by Tumblr

Install Theme