I will only let you touch me
if your hands are so full of intention that every brush of your palms feels like you writing a novel on my skin.
Azra. T, Braile (via aurelle)

(Source: )

(Reblogged from ink-splotch)

Yet More Paper Titles


1. Gaaaaaaaawd, Mom! Extemporaneous Prayer & Feminine Representation of the Divine In The American Teenager

2. Nuts & Bolts: A Review of Terms for Human Genitals, Arranged from Most to Least Hilarious

3. They Do Not Love The Lord Their God, But Instead Their Raisin Cake: Perspectives on Baked Goods as Idolatry

4. Why Don’t Boy Bands Dance Anymore? Changing American Masculinities and Popular Music

5. What Is Packed: Can We Stop “Unpacking” Things In Academia Already, Seriously

6. Had We But World Enough, And Time: An Investigation into Casual Sex as Procrastination

7. Gains, Bro or Gainsborough? Bodybuilding in British Art History

(Reblogged from coffeepotbadger)


Oakland’s Highly Paid Nonprofit Executives Lead the Fight Opposing a Minimum Wage Increase | Darwin BondGraham 

Nonprofit corporation executives are among of the most adamant opponents of raising the minimum wage in Oakland, California.

A ballot initiative spearheaded by labor unions and community organizations to raise Oakland’s minimum wage from $9 an hour to $12.25 next year was criticized in the San Francisco Chronicle by several nonprofit leaders who fear that the law will cut back the reach of their job training programs. Michelle Clark of the Youth Employment Partnership said the minimum wage increase will force her organization to scale back their job training program by 30 spaces. “That’s going in the wrong direction,” Clark told Will Kane of the Chronicle. Olis Simmons and John Latchford, the leaders of Youth Uprising and Goodwill Industries of the East Bay, respectively, voiced similar concerns.

These nonprofit executives are essentially objecting to raising the pay of their employees from $18,720 in yearly pre-tax earnings to about $25,480, an increase of roughly $6,700 per employee.

But what do Clark, Simmons and Latchford make in a given year? How much does their employment cost their organizations?

In 2012 the Youth Employment Partnership paid Michelle Clark $159,330 in total compensation. That’s equivalent to the pay of 8 minimum wage workers.

Olis Simmons of Youth Uprising had a paycheck and benefits equal to $249,761, or 13 minimum wage workers.

And John Latchford of Goodwill Industries is among the highest paid nonprofit executives, taking home $311,566 in salary and benefits in 2012.

Another way of looking at the math of a minimum wage increase, one that focuses not just on the pay of those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy, but also those at the top, is as follows: Under the current minimum wage of $9 an hour, or $18,720 per year, these three nonprofit executives combined are paid as much as 38 of their lowest wage employees. If Clark, Simmons and Latchford have to raise wages to $12.25 an hour, their compensation would drop to an amount equal to the total pay of about 28 of their minimum wage workers.

I break the math down this way because the debate about the minimum wage is centrally about inequality. Few things are certain about the impact of raising the minimum wage. But one certain impact is that income inequality in Oakland would be significantly reduced.

Under the current minimum wage, the ratio of John Latchford’s compensation to that of a minimum wage worker is 16:1, that is, Latchford makes sixteen times more than a minimum wage worker does. Under a $12.25 minimum wage Latchford’s ratio over the lowest paid workers drops to 12:1. That’s a far from the commanding heights of the U.S. economy where the CEOs of global corporations pay themselves hundreds of times more than their average employee, but it’s still a very unequal economic structure that could be addressed if Oakland passes a significant minimum wage increase.

(Reblogged from coffeepotbadger)

naive: in defense of hannah abbott


After the first death at Hogwarts in decades, a death that tarnished a record and started a war, Albus Dumbledore stood up to address his student body.

"Remember, if the time should come, when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory."

And at the Hufflepuff table a girl with pigtails fumed.

"Why are you giving him their word?" Hannah Abbott wanted to demand. "Call him loyal, call him fair, strong, steady. You’re a billion years old, Headmaster. Surely you can think of a word for a hero that isn’t Gryffindor’s."

Dumbledore called him brave. You-Know-Who called him the spare. Cho wept, but never as much as Amos Diggory did.

Hannah climbed into cold sheets that night, in a room hung with yellow and black. She stayed curled up, eyes open, for hours. He was ours.

He wouldn’t have bled black and yellow, no, but Cedric had lived it. He had died by it—sportsmanship in the middle of chaos, two boys taking the cup’s handle together and disappearing into a place only one of them would come back from.

They say fairness is kind. Kind. Hannah kept tissues stuffed up her sleeves. If she burst out laughing in the library, no one asked why. If she cried they thought they understood.

Read More

(Reblogged from ink-splotch)
A good writer with a sad idea and a malicious side is a person to fear.
Me. Cause it’s true. (via gavinsdiary)
(Reblogged from minimanic)










"Image Credit: Carol Rossetti

When Brazilian graphic designer Carol Rossetti began posting colorful illustrations of women and their stories to Facebook, she had no idea how popular they would become. 

Thousands of shares throughout the world later, the appeal of Rosetti’s work is clear. Much like the street art phenomenon Stop Telling Women To Smile, Rossetti’s empowering images are the kind you want to post on every street corner, as both a reminder and affirmation of women’s bodily autonomy. 

"It has always bothered me, the world’s attempts to control women’s bodies, behavior and identities," Rossetti told Mic via email. "It’s a kind of oppression so deeply entangled in our culture that most people don’t even see it’s there, and how cruel it can be."

Rossetti’s illustrations touch upon an impressive range of intersectional topics, including LGBTQ identity, body image, ageism, racism, sexism and ableism. Some characters are based on the experiences of friends or her own life, while others draw inspiration from the stories many women have shared across the Internet. 

"I see those situations I portray every day," she wrote. "I lived some of them myself."

Despite quickly garnering thousands of enthusiastic comments and shares on Facebook, the project started as something personal — so personal, in fact, that Rossetti is still figuring out what to call it. For now, the images reside in albums simply titled “WOMEN in english!" or "Mujeres en español!" which is fitting: Rossetti’s illustrations encompass a vast set of experiences that together create a powerful picture of both women’s identity and oppression.

One of the most interesting aspects of the project is the way it has struck such a global chord. Rossetti originally wrote the text of the illustrations in Portuguese, and then worked with an Australian woman to translate them to English. A group of Israeli feminists also took it upon themselves to create versions of the illustrations in Hebrew. Now, more people have reached out to Rossetti through Facebook and offered to translate her work into even more languages. Next on the docket? Spanish, Russian, German and Lithuanian.

It’s an inspiring show of global solidarity, but the message of Rossetti’s art is clear in any language. Above all, her images celebrate being true to oneself, respecting others and questioning what society tells us is acceptable or beautiful.

"I can’t change the world by myself," Rossetti said. "But I’d love to know that my work made people review their privileges and be more open to understanding and respecting one another."

From the site: All images courtesy Carol Rossetti and used with permission. You can find more illustrations, as well as more languages, on her Facebook page.

(Reblogged from killjoyfeminist)


Best line.

(Reblogged from i-love-his-work)


I went to the MCA in Chicago yesterday with my family and my brothers matched these canvases and then this happened.

(Reblogged from thecointossed)


Sandra Cisneros, Women Hollering Creek

(Reblogged from fuckyeahchicanawriters)


kill the idea that openly caring characters are boring

set on fire the line of thought that dictates that altruism is a bad thing and that selfishness/sassiness is an inherently more appealing and ‘~intricate~’ quality than an affectionate nature

smash and bury the concept of the false equivalency between angst and complexity

kindness and empathy are not synonyms for “blandness” and “lack of personality”

(Reblogged from geekybombshell)


Alan John Herbert: The Body 

hand drawn photogram on top of a medium format photo.

Mamiya medium format with ilford HP5 plus film

My Amp Goes To 11Twitter | Instagram

(Reblogged from hija-de--la-luna)
(Reblogged from thecointossed)

The Dark Side of INFP


The stereotype of infps, makes us sound too sweet and almost angelic. Being portrayed as the naïve, sensitive, kind, idealist, people never suspect that there is a dark side to infps too. They simply cannot seem to see this loveable creature vilified! However, we (infps) know that this cannot be as far from the truth as possible! All I need to say to explain an infps bad side is a quote from this amazing anon- “a great capacity to love also means a great capacity to cause pain”. So without further ado, here are our top 5 demons, laid out for analysis-

1 - Self absorbed: infps dominant function Fi (introverted feeling), can make them quite self absorbed. They get so caught up in the rich internal works of their own thoughts and feelings and ideas that they don’t consider others, or even pay attention to them. They can also think that they understand everything and that everybody else is out of touch, when in reality they could gain a lot from the different perspectives of others.

2 - Emotionally abusive: Infps don’t acknowledge their own passive aggressiveness or emotional manipulation. Since they feel so deeply, it makes it easier for them to understand others by observing and listening to them. But sometimes they use this capacity to observe wrongly and when they are angry, they use what they learn against them.

3 - Expectations: infps can put people up on pedestals and build them up in their heads, making them out to be something they never were in the first place. Then when the person doesn’t live up to their unrealistic expectations, they drop them without a word or even a chance to maintain the relationship.

4 - Melodrama: making a mountain out of a mole. Infps can be over sensitive jerks, making a big deal out of every little thing simply because they’re only able to feel even the most silly things very deeply. They can also be extremely pessimistic (contrary to popular belief) and drag down someone else’s mood when they are feeling low.

5- Avoidance of conflict: infps run away from their problems instead of facing them or even admitting that they exist. Because of this, they are also prone to leading people on because they don’t know how to reject them.

(Reblogged from mostlyvalid)


This is a fantastic quote from Flavia Dzodan that I calligraphed a while ago & am in the process of digitally cleaning up. I like to keep the original scan on a layer as I work so I can click back and forth and see how much progress I’ve made. Still not quite finished, but getting close, I think.

(Reblogged from coffeepotbadger)