Dr Samantha Thomas

Tumbling Through Life

32 notes

coleytangerina: BREAKING NEWS: BOOBS ARE OFFENSIVE The above picture was taken at a march to protect New Zealand’s Maui dolphin - the smallest, and most rare dolphin in the country. Maui dolphins are one of the many species which have been listed internationally as ‘critically endangered’ due to sea net fishing. So you know, there was a march, and people got creative. Given that this photo is beautiful, powerful and shows people thinking outside the box to support a cause that is very dear to the Green Party, the photo was put up on their Facebook page yesterday afternoon. Within an hour, over 100 people had “liked” the photo and 23 people shared the image to their own pages. Then someone, in their infinate wisdom, reported the photo to Facebook. The photo was removed by Facebook, citing a breach of ”community standards”. So firstly, the fuck? Who sees a picture of two very cleverly painted women looking proud and beautiful (and wearing nipple covers for christssake) and thinks “OMG I CAN SEE MOST OF THEIR BOOBS. I’M SO OFFENDED”. Who does that? Are there even people left like that in the world? Have they not disconnected their smutty Internet connection and moved to the woods with their 5 grotesquely old dachshunds? This might blow your mind, d-bag, but boobs are actually just the same as pec muscles on a person without breasts. Except with more fatty tissue. Male bodies even have the glands that can enable them to lactate. Really very similar chest parts except for the fatty tissue. But you know what? That fatty tissue represents all that is wrong and dirty and sordid in the world. Fatty breast tissue stole your first girlfriend. Fatty breast tissue is the reason your dog died. Fatty breast tissue convinced the preacher in Footloose to ban dancing. And Facebook, again with the infinite wisdom, decided that they would listen to said d-bag and delete the photo. The photo which 100 people liked. The photo which contains the nipple-covered, painted chests of two young women making a bold statement about conservation. I could rant about the sexualisation of the female body, or the function of breasts, or the male gaze - but I won’t. Because it’s obvious. This photo was taken down for all of those reasons and probably some “won’t somebody think of those children” sprinkled in for good measure. Because children hate breasts. Apparently one of the women in the photo is going to officially complain to Facebook, which is awesome, and makes me feel slightly better about this whole thing. These ladies are clearly both awesome. But in this process they’ve essentially gotten the message that the way in which they chose to use their bodies was vulgar and breached the magical “community standards”. I’d love to know whose community Facebook thinks their serving in upholding the complaint of someone who is unable to see women’s bodies as anything other than sex. Because they sure as hell aren’t upholding my community

coleytangerina:

BREAKING NEWS: BOOBS ARE OFFENSIVE

The above picture was taken at a march to protect New Zealand’s Maui dolphin - the smallest, and most rare dolphin in the country. Maui dolphins are one of the many species which have been listed internationally as ‘critically endangered’ due to sea net fishing. So you know, there was a march, and people got creative.

Given that this photo is beautiful, powerful and shows people thinking outside the box to support a cause that is very dear to the Green Party, the photo was put up on their Facebook page yesterday afternoon.

Within an hour, over 100 people had “liked” the photo and 23 people shared the image to their own pages. Then someone, in their infinate wisdom, reported the photo to Facebook. The photo was removed by Facebook, citing a breach of ”community standards”.

So firstly, the fuck? Who sees a picture of two very cleverly painted women looking proud and beautiful (and wearing nipple covers for christssake) and thinks “OMG I CAN SEE MOST OF THEIR BOOBS. I’M SO OFFENDED”. Who does that? Are there even people left like that in the world? Have they not disconnected their smutty Internet connection and moved to the woods with their 5 grotesquely old dachshunds?

This might blow your mind, d-bag, but boobs are actually just the same as pec muscles on a person without breasts. Except with more fatty tissue. Male bodies even have the glands that can enable them to lactate. Really very similar chest parts except for the fatty tissue.

But you know what? That fatty tissue represents all that is wrong and dirty and sordid in the world. Fatty breast tissue stole your first girlfriend. Fatty breast tissue is the reason your dog died. Fatty breast tissue convinced the preacher in Footloose to ban dancing.

And Facebook, again with the infinite wisdom, decided that they would listen to said d-bag and delete the photo. The photo which 100 people liked. The photo which contains the nipple-covered, painted chests of two young women making a bold statement about conservation.

I could rant about the sexualisation of the female body, or the function of breasts, or the male gaze - but I won’t. Because it’s obvious. This photo was taken down for all of those reasons and probably some “won’t somebody think of those children” sprinkled in for good measure. Because children hate breasts.

Apparently one of the women in the photo is going to officially complain to Facebook, which is awesome, and makes me feel slightly better about this whole thing. These ladies are clearly both awesome. But in this process they’ve essentially gotten the message that the way in which they chose to use their bodies was vulgar and breached the magical “community standards”.

I’d love to know whose community Facebook thinks their serving in upholding the complaint of someone who is unable to see women’s bodies as anything other than sex. Because they sure as hell aren’t upholding my community

(via laranitanz)

6 notes

Disability funding is no indulgence - Stella Young

Are you willing, along with your promised stint in remote Indigenous communities (where you’ll also come across a great many people with disabilities and their families, mind you) to spend a week every year living as people with disabilities live in Australia? Not one of those silly simulation exercises, where you go out and about in a rented wheelchair or with a blindfold on, but a week where you live the real life of someone with a disability.

For that week, your ancient wheelchair will be broken and you won’t be able to afford to fix it. A stranger will come to your house and shower you. Not daily, of course, because many people who require that kind of personal support are only entitled to two showers a week under the current system. For the other days you’ll feel grotty and reluctant to leave the house, even if you had the equipment and support to do so. You might even be living in a nursing home where you are the youngest resident by 50 years, because you can’t access any support to live in your own home. Perhaps for that week you’ll be unable to speak to or interact with anyone, because you’re still waiting for funding for a communication aid. You won’t have a job, despite being a highly capable employee not just willing but desperate to participate in the workforce.

And during that week you might hear a speech from a leader who wants to take charge of the nation, to make the economy strong and to guide the future of the country. But they’ll tell you, as a person already living in poverty and desperation that you have to wait to live in that country as anything but a second-class citizen until the budget is in surplus.

They’ll tell you that your life and your potential to be a contributing member of society are not as important as money.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-01/young-abbott-misses-the-point-of-ndis/3804576