they must often dream

I'm Savanna. I like to eat, rant, and watch cartoons. I'm 25 and I live in Toronto. This is mostly reblogs.

the-goddamazon:

LOL man.

the-goddamazon:

LOL man.

(Source: romancingalbion, via jas720)

nowyoukno:

Source for more facts follow NowYouKno

nowyoukno:

Source for more facts follow NowYouKno

(via jas720)

thinksquad:

The Oregon Supreme Court this month passed a landmark ruling that will change the way animals are treated under the law in the state for the better. The ruling will ensure that any animal can be seen as a legal “victim” in a case, affording animals more basic rights to protect them from abuse.
The ruling was made on the case of a man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property. The judge’s decision allotted a separate count of second-degree animal neglect for each animal, noting that each animal was a separate victim on his own.
The distinction might sound obvious — but it wasn’t legally accepted at the time that Arnold Nix, the defendant, was first convicted in 2009. During his case, Nix argued that the law defines animals as the property of their owners, so the word “victim” shouldn’t apply to them. As of this month’s hearing, the word “victim” does apply.
“To acknowledge that animals are victims of crime, that’s really common sense to us,” said Lora Dunn, staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland. And the ruling could lead to longer prison sentences for those convicted of animal abuse in the state.
https://www.thedodo.com/landmark-ruling-animals-can-le-685596943.html

thinksquad:

The Oregon Supreme Court this month passed a landmark ruling that will change the way animals are treated under the law in the state for the better. The ruling will ensure that any animal can be seen as a legal “victim” in a case, affording animals more basic rights to protect them from abuse.

The ruling was made on the case of a man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property. The judge’s decision allotted a separate count of second-degree animal neglect for each animal, noting that each animal was a separate victim on his own.

The distinction might sound obvious — but it wasn’t legally accepted at the time that Arnold Nix, the defendant, was first convicted in 2009. During his case, Nix argued that the law defines animals as the property of their owners, so the word “victim” shouldn’t apply to them. As of this month’s hearing, the word “victim” does apply.

“To acknowledge that animals are victims of crime, that’s really common sense to us,” said Lora Dunn, staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland. And the ruling could lead to longer prison sentences for those convicted of animal abuse in the state.

https://www.thedodo.com/landmark-ruling-animals-can-le-685596943.html

(via jas720)

heathicorn:

[brushes your hair] hey

[bakes you cookies] hey guess what

[kisses ur cheek] ur very special and important and i love you

(via efmesideways)

screamandshout:

when you try to tell a joke but nobody gets it

image

(via efmesideways)

I’m all clammy and sneezy and horrible. Should I make hearty homemade soup full of essential nutrimites to help me feel better, or should I cram marshmallows into my face instead so I don’t have to do dishes?

male game designer:

hey maybe we should treat women like people

male gamer:

how could you say these things... i trusted you... i have lost a hero on this day

kanyes-wife:

i hate looking ugly the first time i meet someone like wait i can do better than this i swear

(via efmesideways)

I started playing Eye of the Beholder earlier—I think the first video game I ever played—and I was so happy until it stopped working. :( I made a half-elf ranger, a human fighter, an elf thief/mage, and a dwarf cleric. They had such promise.
In other non-news, I’m hella sick since getting back from Scotland so I think I’m going to start playing my way through Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 in anticipation of Dragon Age: Inquisition in October (IT’S HAPPENING!). I mean I would probably do that even if I wasn’t sick. But being sick makes it feel more acceptable.

betterbemeta:

edensmachine:

seriouslyamerica:

stfusexists:

myphoria:

Check out the contrast between these search results. Not a single “loser”, “easy”, “desperate”, “stupid”, “scum” or similar insult in the search results for fathers.

Why, society, are single fathers so often seen with sympathy and admiration, yet single mothers are painted as a washed-up, disgusting strain on the system?

This is fucked.

I know this is rhetorical, but we know the reason.
Motherhood is not valued in this country, it’s demanded. We have people fighting tooth and nail against abortion, birth control, and then any social program that helps poor mothers. If the world sees you as a woman, you are expected to desire, birth, and raise children, and if you don’t do that, or you do it while poor, or single, or not white, you’re not only failing as a woman but as a mother.
But men, they don’t get defined by their reproductive abilities! They get to be multi-dimensional! And if they spare an occasional thought for the children they brought into the world, it’s a cherry on top of their identity as a person.
Women don’t get the luxury of existing as people outside of parenting, even in 2013. And until we do, this is the shit we’ll be dealing with.

"Motherhood is not valued in this country, it’s demanded."


And black and yellow and brown motherhood is even more spat on. Tiger mothers anyone? 

There’s also the perception that a mother’s duties are just a part of her “function” but a dad doesn’t have to do anything to be a dad if a mom’s around— so when single dads do the work the men get kudos for doing “all that extra work” and actually being nice to the kids rather than just letting the mom raise the kids and only being around to provide “strong male role model” crap for any possible sons, or to gatekeep/ be a threat to other men in a daughter’s dating life.

Straight (white?) men in relationships have, at least in my culture, a comfort zone in being underfunctioning; they tend to (but not all the time, or in all cases) let their wives do their “feeling work” for them and won’t do as much important emotional or personal labor in parenting, as if their financial contribution is the most important element to raising the kid. This “absence” is what our culture likes to focus on as the crux of “daddy issues” or “no strong male role model” as a way to blame kids (esp. women) but not the men they’re implying didn’t invest enough parental labor in their kids. It’s also expected and normal; if dad leaves, he’s just being a shady man we shouldn’t blame him, but if mom leaves, she’s giving up her biological destiny and that’s unforgivable.

(and I shouldn’t have to explain why that’s gross)

And men of color, because their masculinity is deemed either lesser or threatening, may not enjoy this “underfunctioning is normal and okay” privilege. And women of color, who are further not seen as people by society, are made into the stereotypes as edensmachine mentions (tiger mother, welfare queen, etc.)

Basically if you’re white and male and you’re a parent you get all of these praises and medals for doing shit you should be doing anyway, and in a single parent situation one has no choice but to do those things. But if you’re not white you don’t get these medals because you don’t enjoy the default expectations that not doing anything for your kids is okay or normal. And if you’re not male, literally everything about your life is construed in some way to relate to straight and monogamous motherhood and kids so not having a husband makes those kids “wrong” or “a drain on society” without a man to validate you with his financial contribution— even if your own is sufficient. And if you’re neither white nor male you’re the “wrong” person to raise kids at all.

(via jas720)

vivere-est-ars:

every woman on tumblr should have this on their dash

(Source: sizvideos, via mexicanthighs)