The fact that nobody is talking about Secret’s new commercials pisses me off
This makes me so happy ☺️
Yesssss😭 I damn near cried
I LOVE THIS OMFG
YOOOOOOOOOOO THATS AMAZING!!!!!
Can someone help me understand I wanna cry to ..I feel something went over my head
The woman in the bathroom is trans and is scared that if she comes out of the stall the women that walked in will insult or harass her. but when she comes out they compliment her on her dress instead. The add ends with saying “stress tested for women.” It means Secret is including trans women in their definition of women.
I have reblogged this three times now, each one mentioning the fact that Secret not only included a trans woman, but that they /had the other women compliment her dress and treat her with respect/. I will reblog this every time I see it because it’s so important. More companies should involve trans people in their marketing – we do exist. Props to Secret for getting in on this movement. It makes me really happy to see more of the trans community represented in daily television.
Honestly if you’re female and you’re called for jury duty and during the elimination process you’re asked if you’ve ever had any adverse experience with a man (harrassment or rape or any other male violence) just fuckin lie and say no. Then vote that fucker guilty
Women survivors are barred from serving on a jury but rapists are not even questioned. There can be no doubt that this is a major reason rapists walk free. Men have never played fair. It is time for women to start beating them at their own game. Our lives depend on it.
As someone who wants to be a prosecutor one day… I agree.
OK NO. NO NO NO NO NO. I am a defense attorney. I am a woman. I am also a sexual assault survivor. THAT BEING SAID I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS POST ALL WEEK AND IT’S SOOOOO FUCKING WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS.
It’s wrong not for any bullshit rape apologist shit, btw, it’s wrong BECAUSE THIS SHIT WILL LITERALLY FUCK YOU OVER AND FUCK OVER ANY RAPE VICTIMS TOO. Here’s why:
(bear in mind this advice is gonna be MD specific since that’s where I practice)
1) FIRST THINGS FIRST. Don’t fucking lie. Don’t you dare fucking lie when you’re being questioned at jury duty. Why? OK well first: you’re swearing to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. What that means is yes, you will face criminal charges. Criminal charges which, btw, will keep you off of any juries in the future.
Here’s the thing, people (the law enforcement authorities and the defense counsel) WILL be able to find this out especially if you have ever filed a formal police report and/or spoken publicly about it. Yes, even on facebook. This ALSO means that if the fact that you lied about this is found out mid-trial it’s grounds for a mistrial with prejudice, if not a straight dismissal. Which means that hey, look, EVERYTHING HAS TO START ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH NEW JURORS.
2) The second thing is this: in many states, you don’t just get dismissed after answering affirmatively. The voir dire process in MD works like this:
A) prosecutors and the defense come up with a list of questions to ask potential jurors. These are typically a combination of blanket questions you would ask at any trial (ex: have you ever been convicted of a crime in this jurisdiction) and specific questions tailored to the hearing in particular (like the question above). Both attorneys get the chance to view each other’s questions and object to any particular questions that the other team may have.
B) So we’re at jury selection. Both attorneys argue preliminary whether or not questions get to be asked or not, submit the questions to the judge, and decide how to do the striking. (all at once submitted on paper, or alternating).
B1) “striking” means asking to get rid of a juror. A strike can be peremptory, i.e., you can strike for whatever reason you want and don’t have to justify it, automatically. Or you can have a strike FOR CAUSE. There are a limit to how many peremptory strikes/challenges you can have, depending on the jurisdiction, and the type of crime. And you may or may not have to justify those strikes and turn them into “for cause.”
B2) generally if, during a question, a juror answers in the affirmative, the judge will ask you to go up to the bench to privately discuss it with the judge, and both attorneys. In this case they will ask if you or somebody you know was a victim. They will also ask if the incident occurred in the same jurisdiction and possibly involved the same arresting officers. They will THEN ask you if you feel so strongly that it will affect your ability to be IMPARTIAL–that is, will you still be able to only consider the facts presented to you in the court, and be able to judge something as proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not, or will you be biased?
B3) If you say “I am so biased” then yeah, the judge will excuse you right away. But if you say “No I think I can do it. I can be impartial.” you’ll be asked to return to your seat.
C) The questions are now done. The attorneys then go through their strikes. Like I said, they have a limited number of the peremptory ones. And there are other limits too. You can’t strike jurors on the basis of a “protected class” (i.e.: race, gender, religion etc.) and anything that SHOWS that an attorney is doing so a can be objected to by the other attorney. There doesn’t have to be a “pattern” but that helps (i.e. striking three women in a row). Every time a juror gets called and somebody requests a strike, the other attorney can either object or not. So it’s up to each attorney to protect the jurors they want (and btw other than the questions, in MD, the info you get as an attorney is the juror’s name, age, job, and where they live, and their spouse’s job). If there’s a disagreement then the judge will hear arguments either way. If it’s a protected class argument, the attorney who has been striking has to come up with a different reason to justify and that’s got to be something UNRELATED to the protected class (ex: if you struck two Black guys in a row you can’t say “oh well I didn’t want THESE Black guys I wanted the other ones” because that’s still BASED ON RACE).
————
3) SO HERE’S WHY IT’S SO FUCKED UP TO EVEN SUGGEST THIS SHIT AS A WAY TO “SOLVE THE PROBLEM”
A) as I said above, you don’t want to fucking lie.
B) also BEING A CONVICTED FELON, BTW, AND OTHER TYPES OF CONVICTIONS, DISQUALIFIES YOU FROM BEING ON THE JURY. So…convicted rapists? yeah, they can’t actually serve. THIS IS LITERALLY A QUESTION ON THE JURY DUTY FORM AND IS A QUESTION ASKED AT EVERY STAGE OF SELECTION.
C) ALSO, in a couple of the posts I’ve seen they’ve mentioned this question was only asked for women. I’m not sure really if I, as an attorney, would have phrased a question in a gendered way like this SINCE IT’S BASICALLY BEGGING FOR A CHALLENGE AS A PROTECTED CLASS OBJECTION. So fine, if it’s asked gender neutral? That’s OK, but as I said, you won’t get dismissed instantaneously (at least not in MD) as it’s not one of those automatic questions the court asks (i.e.: are you a citizen etc.). And so (again, in Md, Idk about other states) If you say “yes I can be impartial” then fine. Sit your ass down and wait for an attorney to strike you.
D) so if you DO have an attorney striking you, I would ABSOLUTELY object to any attorney who systematically struck ALL THE WOMEN from a jury panel. Because fuck that that’s a protected class that fucking SO DEMONSTRATIVE of a violation of the law. IT’S GENDER BASED. Whoever the prosecutor was who allowed a defense attorney to get away with that shit just wasn’t doing their fucking job.
E) And in terms of this post? about nobody caring? Fuck that if I was a prosecutor I would absolutely ask if any person (”PERSON” DAMN IT NOT JUST MEN BECAUSE THE WIVES/SISTERS/MOTHERS etc. OF MEN WHO ARE ACCUSED OF RAPE ARE ALSO FUCKING BIASED) had ever been accused of rape or sexual assault or knew somebody who did etc. That’s just good lawyering. It’s sloppy not to do so.
F) And as a defense attorney, NGL, I would want to know the answer too, in order to make sure to challenge those strikes.
——-
I get it. I fucking get it. And some of these things will depend on how fucked up your judge is and how good the other side is. But this shit about “OH HEY JUST LIE” FUCK ME NO. DO NOT FUCKING DO THIS.
I’m so fucking furious that people are spreading this like it’s a good damn idea and something that will work. Honestly this is so fucking stupid and dangerous to me that I’m suspicious–is this for real? Or is this somebody trying to false information troll people?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT DO THIS. Answer your questions truthfully and let the lawyers do their damn job. Yes, it sucks, but at the end of the day, people in this country are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And your job, as a juror, is to ASSESS ONLY THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO YOU, AND TO SEE IF THE STATE WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR SUSPECT DID IT. AND THEY DID IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
THe fact is, not all rape cases go to trial. And the ones that do, DISPROPORTIONATELY charge men of color (in particular, Black and Latino men). You cannot believe in equality, fight against racism, protect the constitution AND ALSo try to do this shit. It’s fucked up and completely inconsistent and yet another way to fuck with the justice system. doing this will probably allow more alleged rapists to go free than it will allow for equality in jury selection.
TL;DR: this shit is really fucking bad advice and not the way to actually go about doing things. stop giving people legal advice IF YOU AREN’T A LAWYER. ESPECIALLY IF THAT LEGAL ADVICE that will actually put them in jail, people.
Okay, before you throw tomatoes at my blog (y’all know it’s all good), let me qualify a few things.
1. I hate love triangles. I read the Twilight novels, gagging the entire time because, dude, how is there even any competition? I’m gonna choose a warm, hairy, stinky dog man over a sparkling piece of vampiric rock any day of the week.
2. When I first saw the promotions for the movie, Catching Fire and saw how badly LG was playing up Gale and downplaying Everlark to create a triangle similar to Twilight’s, I was like, gag me now.
However, in the context of the novels (I’m not going into the movies because they are essentially another iteration of the same story and a somewhat incomplete one at best), I’m going to say that the supposed “love triangle” and the “choice” Katniss must make between Gale and Peeta is actually extremely important to the theme of the novel.
Not to repeat the plot, because we’ve been in this long enough to know the story backwards and forward, I just want to say that Collins sets up Gale and Peeta as two aspects of Katniss’ character, two sets of values that she contains within herself and, to the extent that she honors one side or the other will also determine the larger theme in the novel (nice that boys are used to drive a female protagonists character development and not the other way around for once).
Gale, as we know, comes to represent Katniss’ fire, the part of her that fuels her unbreakable will to survive. He is the anger at injustice, the yearning for vengeance and eventually, death. Initially, she sees Gale as an extension of everything that is home to her, that is integral to who she is as a person. Note the quote below:
“I have chosen Gale and the rebellion, and a future with Peeta is the Capitol’s design, not mine.” ― Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire
Even in Catching Fire, Katniss is still struggling with where to put Peeta in her mind but it is not in the same place as Gale. She still sees Peeta as someone imposed on her by the Capital, despite her feelings for him. Gale always represented the home camp, what she was supposed to want, the person who best understood her, whereas throughout the first novel and part of Catching Fire, Katniss still sees Peeta as “other” to her and works to figure out whether she can trust him or not. She describes Gale as follows:
Until one time, I open my eyes and find someone that I cannot block out looking down at me. Someone who will not plead, or explain or think he can alter my design with entreaties, because he alone really knows how I operate.” ― Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire
As the story develops, however, Katniss’s allegiance, loyalty and love for Peeta grows while her relationship with Gale begins to change. Gale becomes more and more polarized in favor of the rebellion while Katniss begins to have moral reservations for the lengths he is willing to go to see his beliefs and anger translated into actions. Here is where we see Peeta’s importance and the alternative he represents to Gale:
I wish Peeta was here— the old Peeta— because he would be able to articulate why it is so wrong to be exchanging fire when people, any people, are trying to claw their way out of the mountain.
― Suzanne Collins
, Mockingjay
The alternative that Peeta represents to Gale’s fire and willingness to go to any lengths to win the war for the Rebellion is humanity, mercy, compassion and justice free of ideology. Katniss invokes Peeta at that moment because she knows that he would argue against sealing the Nut and unnecessarily condemning soldiers to their death. It is not a coincidence that when the issue of The Nut comes up, the moral center of the novel, Peeta, is missing as it is often this type of morality that is notable absent when making decisions in war that involve winning by any means necessary.
The parallel between Katniss’ compassionate, nurturing side and Peeta’s is evident in Peeta holding the morphling in Catching Fire as she dies, which mirrors Katniss singing to Rue in The Hunger Games as she dies. Peeta represents the humane, good, generous, self-sacrificing side of Katniss’ personality, the one who looks at individual suffering and searches for a way to comfort in the midst of horrific circumstances, the one who takes the weak and offers the best protection they can offer.
Gale was everything familiar and known to Katniss. He shared in the particular injustices common to Seam folk which were more pronounced than those of the Merchant class and felt acutely the oppression of the Capitol, even witnessing the firebombing of District 12. Together they had managed to feed their families and represented sanity and survival for each other. However, when he had the opportunity to see his anger vindicated, he became the very destructive fire that Katniss learned would eventually destroy her.
On the other hand, Peeta is the baker, the expert in managing fire for the purposes of creating and sustaining. As many posts have pointed out, Peeta is simultaneously associated with hope, warmth, safety, steadiness and eventually, life and rebirth. He is the Merchant, the “other” and yet it is in him that Katniss finds life and healing after the destructive fires of the wars. He is hope and when hope is absent, death can only follow. Consider the parallel imagery at the beginning of the novel when Gale brings Katniss the arrow piercing a roll and the same Gale at the end of the novel bringing Katniss the last arrow of the war, the bread notably absent:
“I brought you this.” Gale holds up a sheath. When I take it, I notice it holds a single, ordinary arrow.
― Suzanne Collins, Mockingjay
Soon after, with the same breadless arrow, Katniss assassinates Coin and, privy of all hope, attempts suicide. She is thwarted by Peeta himself, who will not let her die. Hope keeps her going even against the forces of death and destruction that would consume her.
Katniss, in a moment of self-reflection sees the paths that are opened to her, represented by her two love interests:
That what I need to survive is not Gale’s fire, kindled with rage and hatred. I have plenty of fire myself. What I need is the dandelion in the spring. The bright yellow that means rebirth instead of destruction. The promise that life can go on, no matter how bad our losses. That it can be good again. And only Peeta can give me that.
― Suzanne Collins, Mockingjay
Unlike other love triangles, whose only purpose is to serve up dramatic tension and is the focus of resolution for a story or series, the supposed “love triangle” in the Hunger Games is actually the symbolic center of one of the major themes of the novel: – what path does a human being take when confronted with forces and tragedies that are greater than what they can handle? Specifically, what side of her character will Katniss obey? I call it a “supposed” love triangle because Collins leaves clues throughout the narrative about what Katniss will choose. She will choose the one she cannot survive without. And she has shown time and again that she cannot live without hope. And so she chooses Peeta.
Because in the end, it’s not fire that keeps us alive. There is only one thing that is stronger than fear. And Katniss chooses to honor that in building her life with Peeta. It is one of the messages Collins wants us to leave with and the love triangle is the vehicle she uses to deliver that message.
Tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the collapse of 2008, and in the intervening decade, Big Finance has gotten bigger,
bankers’ bonuses have gotten larger, and we are barreling toward
another debt crisis that will make 2008 look like a kid’s birthday
party.
Writing in Rolling Stone, Taibbi lays out the decade’s sordid history:
the way that Obama’s malpractice gave the banks more power, made the
rich much richer, paved the way for a donor class that owns politics so
thoroughly that they were able to buy themselves trillions in tax-breaks (with more to come).
No one makes this subject more accessible than Taibbi. We are still
reaping 2008’s whirlwind. Read this today, think about it tomorrow, then register to vote and do something about it. If you’ve got $20 to spare (or better yet, $200), back the kinds of candidates who will do something about it.
If Trump has you outraged, read this. It is his secret origin story, the
sordid tale of how the country came to vote for a man so manifestly
incompetent: because rich people spent what it took to convince racists
to elect him.
The second girl at least read the book to confirm that it was shit, she even had Capote on deck as backup. Chick 1 is just lazy
Nope. Girl 2 saw that Girl 1′s absolutely accurate analysis was being shut down just because it wasn’t stated in an intellectual way (in spite of its validity). So Girl 2 reinforced Girl 1′s opinions in solidarity and made sure that it was absolutely clear that Girl 1 was factually correct. WITHOUT taking credit for her observations (”kim is right” instead of “Actually, kim”)
Girls supporting Girls.
Girls not letting other girls be treated poorly.
If you read thirty pages of a book and hate it, that’s a good analysis. Girl 1 literally said, “It sucked for these reasons, and I only got through 30 pages.” She was absolutely paying attention and trying to get it. But if all you get is a headache, fuck that book.
no one wants to admit they shop at hot topic but we all do
I love Hot Topic and I buy all my clothes from there. For example today I was wearing a black corset with matching lace around it and a black leather miniskirt, pink fishnets and black combat boots. I was wearing black lipstick, white foundation, black eyeliner and red eye shadow. I was walking outside Hogwarts. It was snowing and raining so there was no sun, which I was very happy about. A lot of preps stared at me. I put up my middle finger at them.
