Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

February 06 2015

6369 e637 500
Reposted fromcracknigger cracknigger viagroeschtl groeschtl
5095 7dde 500
Reposted fromNeutrum Neutrum viagroeschtl groeschtl

February 03 2015

2514 143b 500

Meanwhile in Russia
Reposted fromcontroversial controversial viasrecnig srecnig

So I stumbled across a new meme




Feminist Cthulhu







This is pleasing to the eyeballs.

Feminist Cthulhu

Reposted frompeyjturner peyjturner viamanxx manxx
9570 1d0b 500
Reposted frombobekzmuminkow bobekzmuminkow vialordminx lordminx
5119 f025 500
2942 5fb4 500
Reposted fromsommteck sommteck viagroeschtl groeschtl
Reposted fromgeo404 geo404 viagroeschtl groeschtl
Reposted fromzatora zatora viarixx rixx
5718 f3a7 500
Reposted frommynnia mynnia viarixx rixx
Reposted fromr3xio r3xio
8339 8677 500



dad nailed it

I’d planned on reblogging this anyway but that pun really sealed the deal

Reposted frombpash89 bpash89

January 30 2015



So I saw an ad on the back of a magazine this morning:


I saw the * next to the gay and immediately thought it was going to be some sort of terms and conditions where they ask you to prove how gay you are or something equally stupid. So I had a look and this is what it said:


And I was pleasantly surprised.

Advertising, you’re doing it right.

Reposted fromsexgenderbody sexgenderbody viamanxx manxx
7798 eead




What Really Happened in the Congo: Belgium’s ‘Heart of Darkness’

Leopold famously said when he was forced to hand over the Congo Free State to the Belgian nation: “I will give them my Congo but they have no right to know what I have done there,” and proceeded to burn archives.


Did y’all know about this?

Religious terrorism of the highest order

It wasn’t an estimate of 30 million but of 10-15 million. They handed Congo over to leopold at the berlin conference. Congo became belgium’s private property, america was the first to recognise Congo as lepold’s colony and supported him.(america obviously heavily benefited) 

He was reported to have said "I will give them my Congo…but they have no right to know what I did there" so he decided to destroy a lot of the documents. And the sad thing is we don’t know about all he did to the Congo and it’s people so it could be that the death toll was 30 million. 

This is a translation of a letter he wrote to the missionaries.

 “Reverends, Fathers and Dear Compatriots: The task that is given to fulfill is very delicate and requires much tact. You will go certainly to evangelize, but your evangelization must inspire above all Belgium interests. Your principal objective in our mission in the Congo is never to teach the blacks to know God, this they know already. They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi, one Nzakomba, and what else I don’t know. They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else’s wife, to lie and to insult is bad. Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they know already.

Your essential role is to facilitate the task of administrators and industrials, which means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect our interests in that part of the world. For these things, you have to keep watch on disinteresting our savages from the richness that is plenty in their land. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make you murderous competition and dream one day to overthrow you.

Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering, and encouraging your followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will inherit the heaven” and, “It’s very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” You have to detach from them and make them disrespect everything which gives courage to affront us. I make reference to their Mystic System and their war fetish – warfare protection – which they pretend not to want to abandon, and you must do everything in your power to make it disappear.

Your action will be directed essentially to the younger ones, for they won’t revolt when the recommendation of the priest is contradictory to their parent’s teachings. The children have to learn to obey what the missionary recommends, who is the father of their soul. You must singularly insist on their total submission and obedience, avoid developing the spirit in the schools, teach students to read and not to reason. There, dear patriots, are some of the principles that you must apply. You will find many other books, which will be given to you at the end of this conference. Evangelize the blacks so that they stay forever in submission to the white colonialists, so they never revolt against the restraints they are undergoing. Recite every day – “Happy are those who are weeping because the kingdom of God is for them.”

Reposted fromHorseRotorvator HorseRotorvator
Reposted fromkurorori kurorori
2279 7565 500
Another day..
Reposted fromckisback ckisback vialordminx lordminx



"Feminists are taking over Ghostbusters!", men say. "They’re ruining our childhood!"

Meanwhile little girls everywhere can no longer safely Google My Little Pony.

Shots fired

Reposted frommanxx manxx vialordminx lordminx


Why Do Little Boys Wear Light Blue?

The Smithsonian has a great article on how children’s clothing became gendered in the 20th century. An excerpt:

Little Franklin Delano Roosevelt sits primly on a stool, his white skirt spread smoothly over his lap, his hands clasping a hat trimmed with a marabou feather. Shoulder-length hair and patent leather party shoes complete the ensemble.

We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin’s outfit was considered gender-neutral.

But nowadays people just have to know the sex of a baby or young child at first glance, says Jo B. Paoletti, a historian at the University of Maryland and author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America, to be published later this year. Thus we see, for example, a pink headband encircling the bald head of an infant girl.

Why have young children’s clothing styles changed so dramatically? How did we end up with two “teams”—boys in blue and girls in pink?

“It’s really a story of what happened to neutral clothing,” says Paoletti, who has explored the meaning of children’s clothing for 30 years. For centuries, she says, children wore dainty white dresses up to age 6. “What was once a matter of practicality—you dress your baby in white dresses and diapers; white cotton can be bleached—became a matter of ‘Oh my God, if I dress my baby in the wrong thing, they’ll grow up perverted,’ ” Paoletti says.

You can read the rest here.

Reposted fromhappytime happytime viamanxx manxx

January 22 2015

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...