1. caelas:

    saying feminism is unnecessary because you don’t feel oppressed is like saying fire extinguishers are unnecessary because your house isn’t on fire

    (via quasiflexuralthrusting)

    Tagged #this #feminism
     
  2. Tagged #feminism
     

  3. dont-panic-zoology:

    selinamayer:

    The comment that guy added to my photo pretty much perfectly demonstrates what’s wrong with our society’s attitude to women.

    Let’s break this down: “SHUT UP WHORE AND SWALLOW THIS COCK !!!”

    According to him I am a “whore” because I have a nude photograph of myself on the internet. Never mind…

    I lost 2 followers posting about this before but this needs to be said. Keep fighting the fight dude…not all men are like this but the ones who do think and act like it need to be told why they are wrong

    The photo is beautiful.

    The pervasive patriarchal culture that produces misogynistic, entitled, aggressive men who see women as object, as little more than commodity and receptacle, is not.

     
  4. 95bFM asked NZ politicians representing women, what they think are the biggest issues women face, and are they feminists.

    Why Craig is ‘representing women’ I’m unsure, but I’m not surprised that his answer was all about men. I do wish he’d go home and play with his train set and leave real life to the rest of us, maybe after September he’ll get the drift.

    It’s also sadly unsurprising that National’s Goodhew failed to mention violence against women, considering that party’s response to current public discussion and recent events.

    Logie’s answer on the other-hand is not just rounded, but wholistic and evident of joined-up thinking on the subject. Now obviously I’m a Green supporter, but the cogency and inclusiveness of Logie’s response is one of the reasons I am.

     
  5.  
  6. womenwhokickass:

    'It's interesting for me to bring up a girl. You go to the toy store and the female characters there - Cinderella, the lady in Beauty and the Beast - their major task is to find Prince Charming. And I'm like, wait a minute - it's 2005! We've fought so hard to have a say, and not just live through our partners, and yet you're still seeing two-year-old girls with this message pushed at them that the only important thing is to find this amazing dress so that the guy will want you. It's something my mum pointed out to me when I was little - so much that I almost threw up - but she's right.'

    - Björk

    Interesting being an aunty to a girl for the same reasons.

     

  7. The fact that in terms of the (specific, contextless) data, the author of this piece is correct, doesn’t void the subtle victim blaming throughout - oh except for the last paragraph  where he gives the caveat that "married men can and do abuse or assault their wives or daughters. Marriage is no panacea when it comes to male violence."  Sure, in anthropological or evolutionary terms it makes sense that a non-related male is likely to be more of a danger to a woman or her children, but theoretically we aspire to be more than just clever chimpanzees.  Here’s the thing, evolutionary argument, statistics, cultural traditions, whatever:  it still ain’t her faultit is, on the other hand, his.

    The biggest problem I have with this article is that there’s no real acknowledgement of all the socio-political factors that go into who marries or doesn’t marry.  Well not beyond "For women, part of the story is about what social scientists call a “selection effect,” namely, women in healthy, safe relationships are more likely to select into marriage, and women in unhealthy, unsafe relationships often lack the power to demand marriage or the desire to marry. Of course, women in high conflict marriages are more likely to select into divorce." which doesn’t really acknowledge fuck all.  

    The next biggest problem - or possibly, probably, they tie in first place - is that there is no examination of how we might use this understanding, these statistics in order to address male violence towards women and children - non-related or related.  It reads like a shrug of the shoulders suggesting that if only women would be responsible and get married there would be a lot less violence - as opposed to if only men could learn not to be violent towards women and children - non-related or otherwise.  Because that’s the problem.  

    Here’s another thing: is he saying that women don’t marry violent men? or that marriage makes men not violent? his emphasis certainly seems to be on the latter: “But marriage also seems to cause men to behave better. That’s because men tend to settle down after they marry, to be more attentive to the expectations of friends and kin, to be more faithful, and to be more committed to their partners—factors that minimize the risk of violence."  Which is pretty damn insulting to all the decent non-violent men I know, some of whom are married, some of whom are in committed relationships, some who are single and some who are gay (and I dunno is he assuming that their sexuality makes them less violent? or is it women who make men violent? or is domestic violence between two men uninteresting to him?).  I suspect that the “selection effect” referred above has more of an impact than he’d like to admit.  

    I’m also concerned that he doesn’t address the fact that a sense of entitlement is a major contributor to intimate partner and domestic violence.  This is particularly concerning because the implicit ‘ownership’ in the patriarchal model of marriage (with the paterfamilias as provider and protector) is one of the root causes of domestic violence in marriages. That is, when a patriarchal male senses that his dominance within the family is at threat, or is feeling threatened from external sources, he takes it out on his wife and kids.  Which would suggest that it’s not ‘marriage’ per se that ‘protects’ women and children from violence, but men’s attitudes that leads to violence against women (or male intimate partners) and children.

    Slut-shaming is another factor that tends to lead to violence against women.  But this article goes ahead and leads with it: “The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids"  Lovely, because unmarried women have lots of boyfriends and that’s a bad thing.  It’s like he hasn’t really thought about the problem at all.

    Then of course, what about forced marriage?

    Fuck it, the more I think about it, the more it all pisses me off.

     

  8. "Not all men!"
    — 

    Yes but enough men that every girl is terrified of smiling to that guy on the bus or talking with the boy in the coffee shop. Every girl has been walking late at night at one point and been afraid of who might be following her. Every girl has referred to someone as a “creep” and every girl has refused a drink from someone she doesn’t know.

    Not all men.

    But enough men that all women are now afraid of most men.
    It’s gotten so bad that we have to be afraid of even telling you we are afraid. We can’t ask that you please stop talking to us. Because if we do we run the risk of being labeled a “stuck up bitch” and blamed for murders and rapes in which we are the victims.

    So we speak to you with body language that we hope you’ll understand. We cross our legs and look out the window and wear giant headphones that are giant signs that subtly read “DON’T TALK TO ME!” But you insist on ignoring those signs because you have it in your head that our body language doesn’t mean anything. That our bodies aren’t our bodies.

    Not all men.

    You can start fucking saying that when all women can stop being afraid. But that’s not gonna happen if every man a women opens up to about this issue dismisses her by saying “Not all men.”

    an unofficial letter to the skeezball at work all men.

    (via thehansoloist)

    Well think I think they’ve had the right to say “not all men” for a while now considering not all women buy into your senseless fear mongering. Fuck this “every girl” bullshit, I’m not such a weak and paranoid whiner that the mere thought of smiling at someone on a bus or talking to someone in a coffee shop renders me paralyzed with fear. Statistically speaking men have more reason to fear strangers or walking alone at night because they are the vast majority of victims of violence.

    You know what this argument sounds like?

    image

    I could just as easily say that women shouldn’t be allowed around children because they commit the majority of child murders, and you can’t say “B-but not all women!!” until I feel that all kids are safe. But I won’t because humans can be shit no matter what race or gender.

    Kudos to getting 140k+ people to band together with you in the irrational hatred of half the population because of the actions of an absolutely minuscule percentage.

    (via skeehee)

    —————-

    so reblogging this led to a few interesting messages, so I’ll copy, paste, edit, and expand on my reply to one message ( inquiring about labeling fear as irrational ) and just tack in on here.

    I think the original post makes more harmful generalizations under the false pretense that it’s adding to a constructive dialogue.

    Also, I don’t think people’s fears are necessarily irrational.  But the more recent crystallized erasure of experiences under the banner of social justice irks me, and destroys conversations, rather than promotes them. 

    If an individual says “Hey, I see that this is a reality for some people, but my story is a bit different,”  the collective shouldn’t be whittling away at their truth until either nothing is left or they conform.  Their story should be incorporated into the narrative.  Their story shouldn’t be erased.  Someone’s life and constraints being different than another person’s is not a contradiction in and of itself, it’s the nature of the social world.

    Granted, the most recent reply is rather cunty and theatrical, but I think the core sentiment is something to take note of instead of dismissing it as “antifeminist.”

    I think some ways of talking about these matters lead to better ends than others.  To put my specific perspective into the mix -  there are interesting intersections being left out.  Like how it’s not necessarily considered oppressive for me to be mislabeled as a predator on the basis that I’m a man because of the collective experiences of women  but then again if I walk into an elevator a woman clutches her purse because I’m a black male… it then is oppressive?  Or if she crosses the street when I see her because black men make her feel especially threatened… she’s problematic?  Yes?  No?  Unless it’s justified that I be suspect of certain local crimes because I’m a black male.  I don’t know.  I don’t really claim to have the answers - but I’m a fan of honest dialogue on these issues and dialogue itself being a vehicle for progress.  The fact that one spends time to critically examine what’s in vogue shouldn’t be seen as a challenge to these people’s lives.  If anything, it’s an attempt at further understanding them.  

    I really wish i could have these talks without people falling into worn groves of chatter that are more record-skipping than actual sharing of ideas and perspectives.

    (via hotmessdesu)

    I understand your argument, but would say that it comes down to power, & as you say, there’re intersections between these.

    In this sense, the m&ms example is upside down: the power balance is Western people who hold the majority of power saying “Scary Muslims! Oh noes!” about people with comparatively less power in the exchange, and who die because of the fears and attitudes of those with the power (extrajudicial killings aka drone warfare anyone?).

    Which is why it is wrong to make the comparison to ‘Yes All Women’, because men hold the power balance in the majority of exchanges with women (parking intersections for the moment), and pervasive pejorative attitudes towards women do kill women. When the knee-jerk response to women saying “this is what happens, this is how pervasive it is, men we need you on side here because otherwise you’re basically onside with those jerks” is “Not All Men!” that invalidates, is designed to invalidate (even if not everyone who says it intends it, that is where is begins and ends) the experience of women far more than the riposte “Yes All Women” invalidates the experience of men.

    It is absolutely important that we have a dialogue, and that we attend to intersections (race, gender, sexuality, religion, socio-economics) as part of that dialogue. Which is why we kick-back every time we hear “Not All Men” because that phrase and it’s kin are usually code for “shut up, you’re making me uncomfortable, I don’t want to know.”

    Pro-tip: we know that not all men are like that. Guys, when women speak directly to you about this subject, you can assume that they are because they know or assume that your not ‘like that’. The men I’ve worked with, been friends with, my brother, my cousins, I think well of you and I want you to understand what I and other women experience, so I talk to you. You think I’d bother if I thought you were a misogynistic jerk? What would be the point?

    (via hotmessdesu)

     

  9.  

  10. "ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
    : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
    : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion (merriam-webster)"
    — 

    Elliot Rodger isn’t an outlier.  

    Women are beaten, raped, & verbally abused for denying entitled men sex.  FFS a teenage girl was stabbed in the neck recently by a boy upset that she refused to go to the prom with him (because she was already going with someone else).  

    As a consequence, women are afraid to go places, do things, wear things, say no, say yes, leave abusive partners, lay complaints, lay charges, ask for help.  

    This is terrorism and it’s been going on for a long, long time.