Kit Kat Club



made rebloggable by request!







It’s all about…

  • antiviolence
  • health
  • misguided industries
  • misleading corporations
  • faulty science
  • and the prevention of mass murder

What’s so anti-woman about that?

The part where it denies women and other people who can become pregnant basic bodily autonomy. The…

Also, the part where it actively and consciously uses faulty or non-existent “science” itself in order to lie to women and convince them to make a very specific choice or take those choices away. Fetal pain, breast cancer, mental health - none of those supposed concerns are legit as presented, based on real science. Women with abortion complications don’t go to a hospital to ask to see their specific provider with hospital privileges because that’s not how the healthcare system works. Requiring women to house and support fetuses that could cost them their jobs, health, and/or lives is not antiviolence - it is itself a form a violence. 

You can be a feminist and choose not to have an individual abortion yourself. You can be “pro-life” for yourself. But forcing all women to complete pregnancies is not feminist, and it is not about any of those things listed if you scratch even a millimeter below the surface. Making decisions *for* all women because of your own viewpoints on what women should be forced to or prevented from doing is pretty much the opposite of feminism. 

The abortion industry is one of the most pervasive aggressors of violence in human history. Not only does it end the life of a preborn child, but it gives us a society where women are misled into believing that there is nothing more than tissue within her.

When egg and sperm meet, a woman becomes a biological mother. Scientific fact.  She is pregnant.  I think we all agree on this.

But by working for legislation against abortion, the pro-life movement is offering women an option other than ending the life of a preborn child. It stops her from being the vessel of slaughter. If she cannot or does not want to be a parent, that is okay. But when two unique individual lives are involved, it ceases to be only about the woman.

Personally, I believe that the first step to ending abortion is a massive rethinking of sex in society. Free and affordable birth control should be in place. Rape should have more strict consequences.  We should offer mothers who have a hard time options such as housing, transportation, medical care, and financial aid.

Most importantly, we need to help the poor.

But while we do this, we cannot tolerate the slaughter of children - state sanctioned and legal

To not protect the rights of all human beings is ethically wrong.

First: Not only women get pregnant. Many individuals who identify as genderqueer, or who identify as men can biologically get pregnant. 

Now: Let’s be clear on a few points here. You say “the pro-life movement is offering women an option other than ending the life of a preborn child.” But that is patently not true. You are RESTRICTING our choices. Pro-choice does not FORCE women to have an abortion. It gives women CHOICES. Pro-life legislation takes those choices away, leaving you with only one: Carrying a pregnancy to term (regardless of whether or not you can or want to safely.) 

A fetus is not a child, and it is blatant emotional pandering to refer to it as one. A fetus has the potential to maybe be a child, if the person who is carrying that fetus carries it to term, if the pregnancy goes well, if the birthing goes well, if the pregnancy doesn’t spontaneously end, if there isn’t a miscarriage. There are very real, observable, biological differences between a fetus and a child. Their viability outside a womb, their respiration, and their nutrient intake methods, for example, are all different. 

And I’m sorry, but I think that stripping individuals of their basic bodily autonomy in favor of the POTENTIAL of possible human life is unethical. You can not force people to surrender their bodily autonomy for anyone else, even if the second persons life is in danger. You can not compel me to donate an organ or give blood to another person against my will, (EVEN IF I AM DEAD, corpses are given bodily autonomy), to save another person if I don’t want to. You legally can not, because our right to bodily autonomy is supposed to be protected. 

The fact that you would strip individuals of the bodily autonomy that we grant to CORPSES for ANY reason is just unethical and baffling to me. 

I agree that we need to make pregnancy safer, and that we need to make sex safer, and all of your suggestions about helping the poor. I do. I really do. In a perfect world, everyone who wants to get pregnant should be able to do so safely, and everyone who doesn’t want to get pregnant wouldn’t. But to strip people of their bodily autonomy brings us no closer to that goal. 

We need to remember that Human pregnancy is one of the most dangerous, invasive, and intense pregnancies in the animal kingdom. A fetus will literally breach the parents blood stream and stifle the production of insulin so it will have greater access to blood sugar. It is an extremely intensive process, and no one should be FORCED to go through it for ANY reason. FORCING that upon another person turns this brave and miraculous process into a PUNISHMENT, and that is sick in my opinion. 

what he says: feminists are all just ugly lesbians who hate sex and men.
what he means: women are repulsed by me because I'm a misogynistic bastard and I don't want to change so I choose to lash out at them instead. I am a pathetic little man.

Scan-difficult format



Teach a class about racism… and this is what happens.

A documentary about a social justice class that was removed as the direct result of the systematic racism it taught students about.




Across the globe, Nestlé is pushing to privatize and control public water resources.

Nestlé’s Chairman of the Board, Peter Brabeck, has explained his philosophy with “The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution.”

Since that quote has gotten widespread attention, Brabeck has backtracked, but his company has not. Around the world, Nestlé is bullying communities into giving up control of their water. It’s time we took a stand for public water sources.

Tell Nestlé that we have a right to water. Stop locking up our resources!

At the World Water Forum in 2000, Nestlé successfully lobbied to stop water from being declared a universal right — declaring open hunting season on our local water resources by the multinational corporations looking to control them. For Nestlé, this means billions of dollars in profits. For us, it means paying up to 2,000 percent more for drinking water because it comes from a plastic bottle.

Now, in countries around the world, Nestlé is promoting bottled water as a status symbol. As it pumps out fresh water at high volume, water tables lower and local wells become degraded. Safe water becomes a privilege only affordable for the wealthy.

In our story, clean water is a resource that should be available to all. It should be something we look after for the public good, to keep safe for generations, not something we pump out by billions of gallons to fuel short-term private profits. Nestlé thinks our opinion is “extreme”, but we have to make a stand for public resources. Please join us today in telling Nestlé that it’s not “extreme” to treat water like a public right.

Tell Nestlé to start treating water like a public right, not a source for private profits!


Sources and further reading:
Nestlé: The Global Search for Liquid Gold, Urban Times, June 11th, 2013
Bottled Water Costs 2000 Times As Much As Tap Water, Business Insider, July 12th, 2013
Peter Brabeck discussion his philosophy about water rights

holy fuck

this is a huge deal in latin america especially and i need some more people to be aware of this and care



I do find it funny that lesbians are perceived as man-hating but gay men are not perceived as woman-hating, and in fact are often illogically shielded from accusations of misogyny simply by being gay

weird it’s like male privilege works even when queerness is involved who knew

when cishet coworkers are making ignorant comments about queer people
Books transmit values. They explore our common humanity. What is the message when some children are not represented in those books? Where are the future white personnel managers going to get their ideas of people of color? Where are the future white loan officers and future white politicians going to get their knowledge of people of color? Where are black children going to get a sense of who they are and what they can be?

And what are the books that are being published about blacks? Joe Morton, the actor who starred in “The Brother From Another Planet,” has said that all but a few motion pictures being made about blacks are about blacks as victims. In them, we are always struggling to overcome either slavery or racism. Book publishing is little better. Black history is usually depicted as folklore about slavery, and then a fast-forward to the civil rights movement. Then I’m told that black children, and boys in particular, don’t read. Small wonder.

There is work to be done.
Frankly, sometimes I think we should ditch the term “consent” altogether. It feels like a carryover from the old male-aggressor/female-gatekeeper model of (hetero) sex, and, even with the addition of adjectives like “affirmative” or “enthusiastic,” retains this contractual connotation that, I think, detracts from the shift we’re actually trying to make here. The point is that people shouldn’t be “consenting” to sex as if they’re acquiescing to a request to borrow your damn toothbrush. We are talking about sex, for fuck’s sake. Probably the single most universally beloved activity in the world. Of course “consent” should be affirmative; it should be excited, joyful, ecstatic. In a culture that really, truly recognized women as sexual agents with desire of their own, there’d be no question about that.