Now Playing Tracks

didthatrhinoforgethissunglasses:

lifeaslindz:

aber-flyingtiger:

rupeerose:

teafortrouble:

megg33k:

I need feminism because most men’s restrooms still aren’t equipped with baby changing stations. As someone who was married to a man who had sole custody of his young son, I’m hyperaware that feminism means EQUALITY, not female superiority. Feminism should and does support a man’s right to be as much of a parent to his child(ren) as any mother is allowed/expected to be.

This is a constant problem for Mr. Tea and myself. We’ve got twins, so even though I can change one kid on the change table in the ladies’ room, he’s left standing sort of awkwardly in the lobby with a messy child while I change one, come back, and get the other.

Nobody’s suggesting that men aren’t parents, so the lack of change tables goes well beyond ‘gender role reinforcing’ and straight into ‘ridiculous’.

My dad actually almost got kicked out of a mall once for changing my brother in the womens room of a mall. The only reason they didn’t call the cops on him was because the ladies in the room supported him.

I’d never even considered this but I support it

I have seriously always wondered about this. I mean, most malls and such here have “family” rest rooms with change tables but I mean I have watched many a father bring his child out to the car to change because they don’t have rest room access. I am SO glad this is a post!!

Some have microwaves in them to heat your popcorn before a movie

isis-:

seekingtheunordinary:

deathbeforediet:

canwriteitbetterthanueverfeltit:

stand-up-comic-gifs:

Joan Rivers on the Ed Sullivan Show, 1967 (x)

HOW IN THE WORLD DID SHE TALK LIKE THIS BACK THEN AND END UP HOSTING A SHOW TEARING APART WHAT PEOPLE LOOK FOR A FRIGGING LIVING????

SHOCKED when I got to the bottom and saw “Joan Rivers”

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

that is the best use for that quote i have ever seen…

mediapathic:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

This is a theological point that doesn’t come up often enough.

(Source: drunkonstephen)

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union