The Personal is Political

This is a blog where I will be spouting out all of my personal political arguments, thoughts and beliefs. I encourage interaction and you're more than welcome to submit or ask questions. I identify as a feminist and most of my personal philosophies are built around social justice concepts. If you want to jump right to stuff I've written myself check the "the personal is politic" tag. Creative Commons License
The Personal is Political by Ragen Ashlie Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Posts tagged "misogyny"

Just saw Batman (aka The Dark Knight Rises) and I was really struck by how disturbingly absent women are in this film.  I mean, yes, on the one hand we have two main characters who are women and who are very important to the plot and action of the movie, in fact, the movie couldn’t have happened without their characters at all.  But the problem is that was it, it was just those two women.  In the teaming masses thronging the streets on both sides of the battle there wasn’t a single female to be seen.  Not a single one.  It’s as though there were no female citizens or officers within the whole of Gotham city… or, more likely, it didn’t occur to the decision makers of this film that there could or would be any female people in any of those roles which is, of course, bullshit.  In a world where something like the plot of this film was real, actually happened in real life, there would obviously be women in all aspects of the action right alongside the men because WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO; people who have strengths, weaknesses, fears, convictions, desires, and motivations just like everyone alive does.  But the decision makers of this film didn’t see that, they see men as people and women as women, not people.  

And that’s ironic considering that the point hammered home over and over again every single time the two main female characters are on screen is don’t underestimate women.  Both the characters of Selina Kyle and Miranda Tate make it explicitly clear that making assumptions about women is an ultimate fail.  The decision makers of this film obviously understood that fact because those characters drove that point home literally each time they were present in the action of the movie.  The juxtaposition of making the point that we shouldn’t be underestimating women while at the same time having all the decision makers of the movie completely underestimate women in real life, making ridiculously biased assumptions about people just because they happen to be women is astounding and ultimately upsetting on a visceral level.  

It’s upsetting because it’s not at all surprising that this issue played out as it did.  It’s not surprising because while this appears to be a contrast (women shouldn’t be underestimated but yet they are being underestimated at the same time) it actually isn’t a contrast at all, it’s just two sides of the same misogynistic coin.  While they were pointing out that underestimating women is dangerous that’s the only point they were making.  They weren’t acknowledging that women are people, people who can and do have skills, strengths, motivations, and abilities all their own just like all humans do.  They were saying that occasionally a Special Snowflake (TM) female will appear when you least expect it and fuck everything up because she doesn’t “act like a girl.”  Selena Kyle and Miranda Tate are presented as exceptions, as fantastical exceptions.  They’re ultra-rare, they’re mythical, they’re unicorns, they’re different from all the other women on the whole entire planet and no matter what they do or what they accomplish they will still always, at the end of the day, be women, not people, no matter what.  And it is that extreme rarity of women (not people) like Selena Kyle and Miranda Tate that kept women out of every single other aspect of the whole entire film and that’s just fucked up.



(all credit goes to, AKA girlwriteswhat)

Privilege is not something to be ashamed of, but something to be aware of when in a safe space.

1) People are likely to assume I am a warm and empathetic person.

2) People are likely to assist me when I must perform a physically arduous task.

3) If my car breaks down or I am otherwise in distress, people will be more likely to stop and help me.

4) If I am being physically assaulted, no matter the gender of my assailant, it is more likely that passersby will intervene.

5) People are likely to assume I am a competent parent, unless and until I prove otherwise.

6) People are more likely to respect my right to be offended by inappropriate or impolite behavior.

7) If I yell, people are not likely to believe I am going to hurt them.

8) Dress codes in the workplace and in leisure contexts are more likely to allow me to choose clothing that emphasize my most attractive features and minimize those I am unhappy with.

9) I am allowed by society to wear make-up to make myself more attractive without anyone questioning my sexual orientation. I am given a large social leeway in the kinds of hairstyles I can choose that will flatter my facial features.

10) If I work in a profession that is dominated by the opposite gender, people are likely to see it as “heroic”, or a sign of social progress, rather than that I am deficient in some way.

Read More

This is not privilege

1) People are likely to assume I am a warm and empathetic person.

And? All that means is that people are more likely to use someone.

2) People are likely to assist me when I must perform a physically arduous task.
Because they see me as weak and assume I can’t do it by myself.

3) If my car breaks down or I am otherwise in distress, people will be more likely to stop and help me.
Again, because they see women as weak. Being seen as weak is not a privilege.

4) If I am being physically assaulted, no matter the gender of my assailant, it is more likely that passersby will intervene.
This is just not true. People don’t pay attention to other people regardless of gender. Women have been beaten to death while people literally watched.

5) People are likely to assume I am a competent parent, unless and until I prove otherwise.
And the opposite of this is that if I don’t have children (because, hey, not all women do), I will always be looked down upon. If I do have children, I will be eternally criticized if I choose to be a working parent. This is only a “privilege” if the mother is a stay at home parent who is married to a man with a good income. Single mothers, working mothers, young mothers, old mothers etc are constantly criticized.

6) People are more likely to respect my right to be offended by inappropriate or impolite behavior.
Right, that’s why stereotypes like the “crazy woman” and “the emotional woman” don’t exist. That’s why women are constantly criticized as being too emotional. That’s why women aren’t criticized if they’re aggressive. That’s why common insults aren’t all negative towards women (bitch, cunt, “don’t be a pussy,” “you’re acting like a woman.”

Also, what if a woman wants to be inappropriate? What if I want to burp around my friends? As a woman, I can’t. It’s hugely frowned upon.

7) If I yell, people are not likely to believe I am going to hurt them.
Because women are too weak to hurt someone, right?

8) Dress codes in the workplace and in leisure contexts are more likely to allow me to choose clothing that emphasize my most attractive features and minimize those I am unhappy with.
Yeah, tell this to a busty or curvy woman.

9) I am allowed by society to wear make-up to make myself more attractive without anyone questioning my sexual orientation. I am given a large social leeway in the kinds of hairstyles I can choose that will flatter my facial features.
Not “allowed,” told. And if I choose to not wear make-up or to cut my hair short or to not give a fuck about flattering my facial features, I’m going to be criticized. It’s not a “freedom” to have these options, it’s socially dictated that women must spend more time on appearance.

10) If I work in a profession that is dominated by the opposite gender, people are likely to see it as “heroic”, or a sign of social progress, rather than that I am deficient in some way.

This list wasn’t made by someone in a male dominated career, was it. Because ask any female CEO or any female president about what she faces on a daily basis and you’ll see that the criticism of a woman in a “man’s” job is endless.

I also need to add that a lot of this (in both lists!) only ever applies to white women.  

1) The “warm and empathetic” thing - white women have that stereotype, Women of color so do not.  

2/3/4) People rarely offer to assist Women of Color with anything because they don’t get the “precious put on a pedestal” thing white women get and Women of Color get a special type of victim blaming in cases of assault where it’s automatically assumed that they deserve whatever they get no matter what the circumstances are.  A person typically has to be white in order to be considered a worthy, appropriate, deserving victim.

5) People rarely if ever just assume that Women of Color are competent parents.  In fact, the stereotypes are all about how they’re nothing but awful, selfish, neglectful assholes who can’t succeed at anything most especially caring for the lives of their children.  Women of Color are instead treated as though they’re worthless, incapable, incompetent parents unless and until proven otherwise and usually it’s impossible to prove because the assumptions are based on racist bullshit which means logic and evidence are all irrelevant.

6/7) Women of color are automatically assumed to ALWAYS be angry and irrational and their feelings are rarely if ever taken seriously.  Additionally, when Women of Color get angry NOT MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE they’re assumed to be violent no matter what.  Only white women get the assumption of docility.

8) Yeah, no women have that ever at all.  But, when we add the racial intersections Women of Color are far more harshly judged for their appearance than white women are.

9) This one doesn’t have any racial issues I can think about with the exception of the fact that Women of Color are still more harshly judged in their appearance choices about what is and is not acceptable than white women are.

10) Also can’t think of racial intersections here other than the fact that Women of Color working in “white industries” have serious issues with progress and nobody calls them “heroes” for it, they just do everything they can to stop it.  Also Women of Color have ALWAYS worked (for the most part, at least in this country) so them working was considered unremarkable while white women working was a big fucking deal because, again, white women get the “put on a pedestal need to be protected and coddled thing” and Women of Color don’t get that at all ever.

(via toudoufukawa)











armor that doesn’t have boob cups

second version of this i’m reblogging today but whatever DAMN GIRL


Ok so I like kstew sure but I’m like normally not attracted to her. But there is something about a really badass lady in practical armor that gets me all tingly.

The armor! The practical armor! It’s so beautiful.

yes omg i almost cried when i saw her armor negl

unf tbh

The more I see of this movie, the more I am developing a complete crush on Kirsten Stewart.

….yeah, okay. This kind of solidifies it for me. I’m going to see this movie.

I was already going to see this for Chris Hemsworth with long dirty hair, but the practical armour (and I assume shoes!) has won me over.

I’m so fucking sick of people shitting on Kristen Stewart for having “no facial expressions” - LOOK AT THESE GIFS!  Do you see all the emotion there?! In her eyes, in her face, in her every nuanced movement about the stage and these are just gifs!  People need to stop being such sexist shit heads about her!  It’s not her fault she played a shitty character who’s emotional range was virtually non-existent and basically resembled that of a potato.  Bella Swan is a shitty character and, frankly, I think it’s damn impressive that an actor with such a stunning range and ability to convey emotion was able to convincingly play the one-dimensional robot that is the Twilight “heroine” so well that people actually believed it wasn’t acting at all.  



People are so annoying… 

While I agree that Special Snowflake Syndrome(TM) is always bullshit this ribbon bothers me because it directly insinuates that men are the default for human beings.  This Special Snowflake(TM) here can do everything “everyone else does only with a vagina” - so clearly “everyone else” doesn’t have a vagina which means “everyone else” is men*.  That’s pretty fucked up.  Calling out Special Snowflake(TM) nonsense is always great but it’s really not ok to use sexism to do it; fighting sexism with sexism kinda defeats the point.  

*I put this in binary terms because sexism and misogyny are at their very cores binary.  Sexism and misogyny can’t work if they’re not binary, if they admit that anything beyond the binary exists or that there are liminal spaces amongst their rigid definitions of “this” and “that.”  If we lived in a world where the binaries aren’t the end all being all of everything then they wouldn’t be able to a) classify men as anything without a vagina and b) classify men as the default for humanity.

(via dion-thesocialist)


“she’s such a slut” = i fear the way you express yourself so ill degrade your worth until you stop

I love this sign because it doesn’t just apply to white women, it applies to Women of Color too!  With white women anyone who breaks the laws of “purity” and has the audacity to control he own decisions about her sexuality is a slut and that’s because people fear the fact that she’s in control, they fear her sexuality existing in a way that isn’t owned and operated by a man (preferably her husband) which is the only way it’s acceptable for a white woman’s sexuality to exist at all.  Meanwhile for Women of Color the fact that they can, will, and do reproduce, creating more and more People of Color forever and ever is what causes racist/white supremacist assholes to fear their sexuality.  This fear is based upon the potential fruit of that sexuality - children - which is why all Women of Color are automatically sluts no matter what they do or how they act.  Every Woman of Color has the potential to reproduce so even if she’s not even sexually active there is an inherent fear of her sexuality which makes her a slut regardless of her personal choices and behaviors.   


she’s such a slut” = i fear the way you express yourself so ill degrade your worth until you stop

I love this sign because it doesn’t just apply to white women, it applies to Women of Color too!  With white women anyone who breaks the laws of “purity” and has the audacity to control he own decisions about her sexuality is a slut and that’s because people fear the fact that she’s in control, they fear her sexuality existing in a way that isn’t owned and operated by a man (preferably her husband) which is the only way it’s acceptable for a white woman’s sexuality to exist at all.  Meanwhile for Women of Color the fact that they can, will, and do reproduce, creating more and more People of Color forever and ever is what causes racist/white supremacist assholes to fear their sexuality.  This fear is based upon the potential fruit of that sexuality - children - which is why all Women of Color are automatically sluts no matter what they do or how they act.  Every Woman of Color has the potential to reproduce so even if she’s not even sexually active there is an inherent fear of her sexuality which makes her a slut regardless of her personal choices and behaviors.   

(via ya-la-vida-continua)


let’s be honest

this is Disney’s greatest masterpiece

Except that it’s nothing but Special Snowflake(TM) misogyny all the way through which is essentially the route Disney and the mainstream media as a whole have taken in an attempt at “female empowerment.”  Look, I like the song, I like the movie, it’s catchy and fun and I know all the words and I don’t hesitate to jam along whenever it comes on BUT, that doesn’t change the fact that this song and this movie are both problematic as fuck.  

It’s right there in the opening, in the second line - “Did they send me daughters when I asked for sons?” and then the whole rest of it is “I’ll make a man out of you” and non-stop misogyny - insulting the troops by comparing them to women until they can become worthy warriors and thus be considered “manly” which is simply a code word for “successful.”  Sure, it’s awesome that Mulan is capable of “being a man” too because that means that “man” isn’t a biological category so HOORAY for a non-binary concept of sex and gender, and it’s even nice that the concept of “man” in this song is all about what the person is capable of doing, so, again, HOORAY for a non-binary concept of masculinity, BUT all that stuff is created through misogyny, by denigrating everything socially constructed as “feminine” and “female” in comparison to the desirable “masculinity” and “maleness.”  Mulan kicks ass because she’s not “feminine,” she’s not a “typical girl,” she kicks ass by eschewing “feminine” qualities and embracing “masculine” qualities.  She’s a Special Snowflake(TM) and is only capable of all her awesomeness because she doesn’t “act like a girl” and “acts like a man” instead.  

And that’s basically where Disney has gone with all of their female characters in the past few decades.  Mulan, Pocahontas, Tiana, Jasmine, Belle, even Ariel a little bit are all great because they’re “not like other girls.”  Each character is specifically crafted to be “different” from all the other females in the entire movie, to stand out as being not “feminine” or at the very least as behaving in ways that are not traditionally associated with femaleness.  They’re special because they’re different. This sends the message to everyone watching those movies that the only way a girl can become a badass, the only way a girl can be awesome and capable and worthwhile and achieve her dreams in life is by being not “feminine,” by being “not like other girls.”  They’re doing the same thing with Merida in Brave if the previews are to be believed - she’s purposefully created as the Special Snowflake(TM) “not like other girls and that’s what makes her so awesome!” character just like all the rest are.  

These characters are tropes, they’re damaging and they’re fully rooted in misogyny, in the idea that anything socially constructed as “feminine” is bad, awful, unworthy, and ultimately detrimental, an obstacle to overcome and nothing more.  Imagine if we had a Disney Princess movie where the Princess character was stereotypically ”feminine” while also being a kick-ass heroine who saves the day too?  Something like Aurora in Sleeping Beauty (who I think is a pretty “feminine female”) who kicks as much ass as Mulan does, who stands up for herself like Jasmine and Ariel do, who follows her bliss regardless of what others say about it like Belle does, who’s as agentic as Tiana is, and who educates without fear of the consequences and steadfastly argues for what she believes in like Pocahontas does.  Now that’d be something.

(via pallas-athena)

It doesn’t matter that most people with uteri are women. That’s not why it’s misogynistic. People who oppose abortion do so because they hate women, and in their mind the only people with uteri are women. It’s an intersection of cissexism and misogyny where a cissexist framing of bodily association to gender is used as a tool of oppression against women.

autumn-and-eve (via notafraidofruins)

Which is why simply refusing to allow that erasure to continue is a revolutionary act in and of itself.  If we can reframe the discussion in real life terms, in the reality that men can and do get pregnant and that some women can’t get pregnant or that some people with uteri can’t get pregnant we are left with the fact that abortion rights are all about pregnant people, PEOPLE who can become and/or already are pregnant.  People, not women, not men, not uterus bearers, people.  Because, you see, to all those anti-choicers out there pregnant people aren’t people at all; they’re incubators for the fetus, the fetus they see as being more of a person than the pregnant person is or ever could be.  Refusing to allow their erasure of trans* people helps to break down both the cissexism and misogyny.  Intersectionality helps everyone.

(via homunculilith)


One reason men despise the word “creep” so much more than any other insult is that it isn’trooted in misogyny. Jeremy Paul Gordon specifically compared the term to “pussy,” “douchebag,” and “asshole.” The first two words, when directed at a man, insult him by comparing him either to a vagina or a device used to clean one; their pejorative power lies in the way they feminize the guy who gets called one of these names. “Asshole,” as the historian Rictor Norton has suggested, is rooted in a derogatory term for men who allowed themselves to be anally fucked. A man who gets penetrated behaves like a woman and is labeled as feminine — a fate that we raise small American boys to fear more than almost anything else. (This is why, of course, words like “bitch” or “pussy” when used by one man to another, are so much more likelier to lead to blows than “dick” or “prick.” Men are unlikely to be enraged by references to their own anatomy, only to a woman’s.)

So if fear of the feminine is what gives male insults their power, why then is “creep” worse than “pussy?” The answer is that creep is the only insult that instantly centers women’s perceptions. To call a man a “pussy” is to make a comment about how his behavior appears; to call him “creepy” is to name how he makes women feel. If a man wants to disprove that he’s a “pussy,” all he has to do is act with sufficient macho swagger or courage to make the insult obviously inappropriate. But trying to disprove “creepy” involves trying to talk a woman out of an instinctual response to a potential threat, a much more difficult thing to do. Most men recognize (or eventually learn) that the harder they try to deny their creepiness, the creepier they appear.

I just … this is so full of fail!!!  

  1. Any derivative of the word “douche” used as an insult has nothing to do with  ”the feminine” and the fact that someone who calls themselves a scholar would not know that is just appalling!  In real life a douche is something that is falsely marketed as being both beneficial and necessary when in fact it is both harmful and unnecessary.  A real-life douche is emblematic of the patriarchy because it is a device/procedure specifically invented by patriarchal institutions to control, vilify, and make money off of in unethical ways (i don’t know a single word for that phrase) the bodies and lives of people with vaginas.  Therefore, calling someone any derivative of the word “douche” is saying two very important things - that the person is both harmful and unnecessary while attempting to falsely present hirself as both beneficial and necessary and that the person is behaving in some way that is in line with patriarchal structures.  That’s why it’s such a huge insult from the vantage point of the person using it and that’s why it’s usually not taken very seriously by the people it’s hurled at - what patriarchal person would take being compared to the patriarchy as an insult considering that most of them wear their alignment with pride(?).  
  2. Calling someone an asshole is derived from the fact that shit comes out of an asshole.  That’s it, it’s pretty simple.  It’s essentially saying that the person is symbolically composed entirely of shit or is spewing shit out of their mouths at such an alarming rate that they are not longer a person and are just a giant, walking, talking anus, nothing more.  Again, this is why it’s such a huge insult from the vantage point of the person saying it and not taken very seriously by the person it’s hurled at considering that most assholes seriously think that what they’re saying/doing is valuable and has merit so they’d never agree that it’s all just shit and don’t care that others believe so.
  3. While the term “creep” might be more likely to catch a person’s attention because it situates the feelings of the victim in the forefront that’s not the whole of it, they really only skimmed the surface here.  Every single insult in the world places the victims feelings in the forefront because it’s literally a victim speaking out about how they feel.  When people who’ve been abused by someone who’s creepy in a creepy way speak out about it potential victims listen.  And victims of creeps tend to speak out about it to their friends in an attempt to protect them from future abuse.  Labeling a person as a creep puts everyone on notice and thereby deprives that person of potential victims.  Calling someone a creep has power.  It has more power than any other insult in the world because it’s not actually an insult it’s a descriptor and all victims of creeps know what that descriptor, that label means.  That’s the real reason a creep would get upset over being called a creep in a way that they wouldn’t get upset about any other word or phrase being used, because creep is the only descriptor that has that kind of power.  The moment a person is labeled a creep that person has less power and their victims have the power to protect themselves, the power to stop the victimization before it even happens, and the power to deny the abuser future victims.  That’s a hardcore power shift, it actually effects the inequitable power structure that allows creeps to be creeps in the first place.  It’s not upsetting to the abuser because it forces the abuser to recognize the feelings of hir victims or because it’s not as easy to gainsay because it’s not rooted in misogyny.  That idea is just simplistic patriarchal nonsense that doesn’t actually realize what’s going on here.  No abusers do that and no abusers care about their victims feelings enough for recognition to matter one bit.  They care about one thing and on thing only - their power - and the label creep affects their power in a serious way which is why they freak out over it in ways they don’t when other labels, descriptors, or insults are used.  

(via trulysophisticat)




If women were really paid so much less for the same job as men, wouldn’t companies hire just women to maximize profits?

You’re all suffering from a victim complex. Get off your overly entitled high horse and make a living.

women v. men is not the only wage gap that exists, and exists for multiple reasons.   It’s not something employers usually consciously do.   It’s not a “wooo we hate women” act.   It’s subconscious and based on people’s subconscious comprehension of the ability of women to perform in the future/ how they have performed in the past/etc.

To posit you an equally ridiculous question:

If blacks really were paid less than white people, wouldn’t companies just hire black people to maximize profits?

In a hypothetical world, maybe.   In the real world, both of these statistics are super readily available to you via google, and make clear that the way money moves does not always make logical sense because, idk, sexism and racism are not totally logical?? 

Like: two clicks and you’d be able to disprove yourself without a bunch of embarrassing reblogs.    Even when we’re just looking at the US- and feminism is not like, stopping at the border or something, here I am in Germany now- women make less than men statistically, and blacks make less than whites.    This is not like written in a fairytale book that all the feminists read to their children at night; these are statistics that you can fact check yourself.  

^ So this commentary is awesome!

Men like lewis are suffering from an overdose of privilege, in which they can do nothing but uncritically address a situation while automatically assuming themselves the most logical ones while in fact being woefully uninformed. Is it /really/ that hard to actually listen to women /before/ you start running your mouth about their experiences and how they’re wrong?

And in fact when the recession started more men were being fired than women in part because they made more money and the companies needed to salvage their profits.  That’s an actual documented fact.  In some places the disparity was simply due to the fact that there were more men in the workforce to start with but in places with more equitably gendered and sexed workforces (like France, for instance, were 95% of fires were men) the gendered/sexed downsizing disparity still existed.  Additionally, recovering from the recession has been hardest on women in part because they are, on average, paid less than men for the same work.  But also due to overwhelmingly sexist attitudes about “women’s work” and the place of women both within their households and within the workforce (like the fact that male workers and applicants are seen by employers as “needing” the jobs to support their families while women don’t actually “need” the money to support a family, they just want it - regardless of whether or not the applicant is single, has kids, or is the sole or main breadwinner in hir household). 

Of course, there are many complex reasons for all of this stuff and, as has already been pointed out, it’s not just a gendered or sexed thing - race, level of education, sexuality, ability, and age are also factors - but claiming that women aren’t paid less is just statistically untrue and is therefore genuinely not logical at all.  Unless, of course, you think the people at Forbes, Harvard, the US Census Bureau, The Economist, and Time are all just illogical man-haters in which case you really just have no place involving yourself in a discussion involving informed, rational participants.

In the words of Marshall Erickson - Lawyered.  Sources here, herehere, here, here, herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

(via homunculilith)


hua mulan

  • saved china not for validation of her person or escape from any dissatisfaction at home, but to spare her father + brother and out of loyalty for her country
  • when her father raised objections she challenged him to a duel and defeated him
  • fought for twelve years against xiongnu (yeahhhh it’s kind of iffy who it was that she fought against but it was NOT the hun, who by the northern wei dynasty had already assimilated because they were a threat only to the fucking HAN dynasty and then emperor wu of han built yu men guan and blah blah blah)
  • became a general
  • allow me to repeat: she BECAME A GENERAL
  • was offered a high governmental position, but declined because again, never set out to prove anything to anyone, never needed validation, was never particularly defiant, fought because she was loyal and filial
  • returned to the quiet life, shunning renown and wealth
  • revealed herself to be a girl only when her friends came to visit her

fa mulan (a la disney)

  • snuck away in the middle of the night
  • fought for like, barely a year
  • was revealed to be a girl as opposed to revealing that she is a girl
  • snuck away due to both filial concerns and a dissatisfaction with her home life, as well as a desire to prove herself
  • needed a guy to validate herself to some members of her family (her great-granny)
  • did all this with the help of mushu (esp in regards to getting rid of the hun)
  • (against whom she could not have fought if disney had any sort of stake in historical records)
  • still ended the war as a common foot soldier

but yeah, no
tell me again how disney made mulan so uber-feminist-like 

I also feel the need to point out here how inherently misogynistic the movie is (since feminism was brought up and all).  That song everyone loves that they keep quoting and reblogging all over the place?  Yeah, that song is incredibly hateful.  Shang says over and over again how horrible and worthless all the people he’s training are and tells them over and over again how he will make a man out of this sorry bunch of worthless losers (worthless losers who start out as “daughters”).  See, femininity and femaleness are inherently denigrated time and again while masculinity and maleness are upheld as the pinnacle of perfection throughout the entire song (and movie).  It’s made clear that the only reason Mulan is such a badass is because Shang made a man out of her.  This isn’t female empowerment or anything else positive; it’s a single Special Snowflake(TM) female who was able to overcome the weakness inherent in her sex and become something more, something better by being stripped of all that worthless femininity.  This is a powerful message and it’s a recurring theme throughout the whole film - only masculinity is valuable and only Special Snowflake women who are “manly” enough are capable of “greatness.”  It’s not that anyone is capable of doing it if they try hard enough; it’s that only those who choose to embrace masculinity are capable of achieving success.  

And, of course, the OP makes great points here and the fact that Disney chose to alter the story so completely really highlights the misogyny inherent in the film.  Thanks gondoleia!

(via karnythia)

Creep shaming is probably one of the most insidious and anti-equality things you can do. The ability to label men as “creepy” is just one privilege that women enjoy, and a constant source of fear of ostracizing that all men must fear in our society.

AntiBigots, Reddit


(via cosmicnavel)

 “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.” -Margaret Atwood

(via librariesandlemonade)

Reblogging for the Atwood quote, which is showing its truthiness right here.

(via blueandbluer)

so, women have privilege because we call men creepy. ok. that makes sense…in backwards land.

(via michelle-my-belle)


here’s teh thing, cis dudebros.

stop raping us in disproportionate numbers and stop assuming we’re your sexual property. also, stop cat-calling.

and we’ll magically stop ‘creep shaming’ you.

it’s funny how i don’t creep shame guys from my church as they are comfortable with the mode of physical contact i am and they treat me like (gosh) a human being, not a vagina. ( i realize thatn ot all churchdudes are like this, i’m just citing mine).

(via howtfoldlaundry)



(via southcarolinaboy)

Creep shaming

Creep shaming



(via cruelyouth)


(via mollypockette)

commentary is relevant as fuck

(via femmesandfamily)

“creep shaming”… that’s a good one.

(via thiscuntsays)

if you’re afraid of being labeled “creepy” then don’t be creepy.  it’s as simple as that.

see, people call people creepy AND share that information with everyone they know for, in general, 3 reasons: 1) to share their feelings with others in an attempt to deal with them, feelings of fear, feeling uncomfortable and unsafe, feelings of being objectified, any number of upleasant feelings that we are made to feel by creeps on a daily fucking basis that need to be processed and dealt with; 2) to let people know what’s going on in case things turn dangerous and the creepy person turns violent so that they can attempt to keep themselves a bit safer because if people know what’s going on they can be on the look out, be more protective, and potentially identify an attacker if it comes to that; and 3) to keep OTHER people safe, if someone is a known creeper other people need to know to stay away from that person to keep themselves safe and since most of us care about other people we share this information for the good of EVERYONE.

if you don’t like being called creepy stop being creepy, don’t ever be creepy, help people feel safer when they’re dealing with creepers, and fucking take a stand and call people out when they are being creepy.  that’s all you have to do, YOU have the power to avoid and even end what you call “creep-shaming” and we call doing our best to deal with living in an environment that is CONSTANTLY dangerous, scary, upsetting, and essentially miserable as fuck.

(via rapeculturerealities)

(via rapeculturerealities)

Someone I follow just said something about how going out and doing stuff is more important and more effective at creating change than people who just talk about stuff all day (which is what she does as a blogger).  It was really self-deprecating and definitely held what might be termed “physical”(?) forms of activism as the ultimate and seemed to claim that less active forms of activism (like blogging) aren’t even activism at all.

My first thought here was that this is completely ableist and that’s just shitty and sad.  She pointed out that the reason she’s not more involved in more active forms of activism is because of her social anxiety and that’s why she can’t do “more important things.”  And, of course, thinking like this really is incredibly ableist and it’s also really classist and racist as well considering the way more traditional forms of activism and activist communities work in the world today.  But then I thought about it and I realized that this is also incredibly sexist too (something I hadn’t thought of before).  

I’ve had this argument with people many times before.  I’m a big believer that “armchair activism” (the common derogatory term for people who sit around writing and talking and never actually “do” anything) is real activism, is important activism, is legitimate activism, is just as important as any other form of activism and is an incredibly necessary part of any sort of activism but it wasn’t until just now that I realized how overtly misogynistic the idea that talking and writing don’t count as activisms really is.  Based upon the ways female presenting people are viewed, treated, controlled, and socialized in our world it often happens that the only forms of activisms even available to them are actually things like consciousness raising - talking and writing about their experiences, sharing, telling and retelling and hearing, and just supporting other people through social interactions and relationships.  Additionally, based on the same socializations and socially constructed barriers the kinds of activisms that female presenting people tend to excel at are actually the “non-active” forms - the social stuff that involves talking, writing, and analyzing things.  We associate those social interactions with femininity in our society and therefore I would posit that devaluing and denigrating social forms of activism is inherently misogynistic.  

To look at this another way, I think most people accept “good” journalism as a potentially activist profession.  An activist journalist has the power to bring important issues to light, to analyze complex situations, to educate people on things that have been hidden from them and as such has the power to bring about real change and progress within the world.  Journalism be it in the form of a newspaper, a magazine, tv reporting, interviewing, or even photography can be a powerful activism and I’ve seriously never heard anyone say that activist journalists aren’t “real” activists or that their contributions are unimportant or somehow less valuable than people out in the streets organizing and “doing things.”  Journalism is an overwhelmingly male dominated profession and nobody calls their contributions to activism into question; meanwhile, things like consciousness raising organizations, blogging, and support groups tend to be female dominated and even the people doing these things don’t think their work is important.  All these people are doing the exact same things as far as activism is concerned - educating, analyzing, and shedding light on important/hidden issues and yet when it’s a man doing it for money it’s valued and important but when it’s a woman doing it for free it’s devalued and denigrated.

Is there something I’m missing here?

I went the the movies this afternoon and there was a preview for Brave.  I’ve already seen this preview but this time it got me thinking about the heroines in modern Disney movies.  There’s this idea that the modern Disney Princesses are a great step forward for the ladyfolk and for society as a whole because they’re all strong, independent, courageous, fierce, capable people in their own right.  Mulan fought for her country and saved them all.  Tiana built her own business and took care of herself without needing a man.  Rapunzel leaves her tower and fights with a frying pan despite having been filled with a fear of the world by her “mother.” And then Merida, it seems, will fight for the right to make her own choices about her own life without fear of censure.  These all seem like great role models for growing girls and it also seems like we’ve come to a place in our society that’s not afraid of strong, complex, dynamic women.  Great stuff, right?  Progress, right?  

Except no, because all of these characters are the exception.  Each one of these girls is a Special Snowflake(TM).  She’s strong and dynamic and powerful and filled with agency when all the other women around her are weak, disempowered, subservient, and willing to blithely follow the dictates of others.  She’s great because she’s “not like other girls” sending the message to all the people who see these movies that in order for them to also be great they must also not be “like other girls.”  Mulan, for instance, was “made into a man” by Shang because no girl would ever do anything like what she has done.  She essentially has her femininity stripped away in order for her to become worthy and capable of heroism.  If the previews are any indication Merida will be a similar Special Snowflak(TM) - only a celebrated and worthwhile heroine because she is “not like other girls.”  

To me this is not progress, it’s just variations on the theme that women and femininity are not valuable.  Glorifying a world where females can only be positive role models if they “don’t act like girls” doesn’t help anyone and does a great deal of harm; as much harm, I would posit, as glorifying a world in which women can only be valuable if they are weak and subservient.  Either way it still hates on women and increases the amount of misogyny in the world except with the Special Snowflake(TM) version of female heroism it makes misogyny a requirement for success.






the phrase “womyn-born-womyn” doesn’t ACTUALLY exclude transwomen. Transwomen ARE woman-born-women. They were just as female on the day of their birth as they are now. It’s just that no one knew it yet.

When you kick them out, it’s not because they aren’t “real” women. It’s because you’re assholes.

Just for the record.


I hate that festival. I hated it before I even knew anything about trans* anything. But for real, this is the pinnacle of disgusting bigoted bullshit.

Nobody is born a woman. I was not born a woman, cis women weren’t born women. They were assigned that term because of how their genitals looked when they were born. Please don’t essentialize gender.

Whoa… no. You can talk about how YOU feel that it’s just a term based on genitalia, but that is not how everyone feels about it. Trans* women have been talking about this particular festival in these exact terms for as long as it has existed. They may not be the terms you choose for yourself, but you don’t get to take the terms away from trans* women that choose them. It is not “essentializing gender” to say that people can believe they have ALWAYS been a woman/female. I get what you’re trying to say because I believe gender is fluid and shifting, but not every trans* person even believes that and perhaps it isn’t fluid for everyone. The whole argument of MichFest is around the fact that trans* women aren’t “real” women because they didn’t have that essentialized genitalia at birth, and that is wrong. Many (probably most) cis women feel they were born women, even the ones who do know and care about non-coercive self-identifying. I know many trans* women who say they were born women but named otherwise.  Don’t erase them. I am against assigning gender to people and for everyone naming themselves. I’m just as against other queer people denying the way women name themselves as I am against cis people doing it.

Ok, while I agree that it’s completely shitty and prejudicial to exclude transwomen from woman only spaces can we please stop pretending that male privilege isn’t an issue here?  While there are plenty of transwomen who have dealt with their privilege and don’t act like douches in woman only spaces there are still plenty of transwomen who were socialized their entire lives pre-transition with nothing but male privilege and have the associated sense of entitlement that goes along with all that privilege.  There are many transwomen who choose to ignore the very real effects of their male socialization and such people can be and often are heinously masculinist within safe-spaces.  It is absolutely not transmisogynist to recognize that and exclude such people on an individual basis - it’s not because “they’re really men” it’s because they’re acting like assholes and don’t deserve to be included.  

A safe-space for women should be one free of douchey male entitlement and it’s perfectly acceptable for women who have been legitimately traumatized by all of that douchey male entitlement to do whatever they think is necessary to keep the space as free from male privilege and male entitlement as they possibly can.  When we’re talking about something on the grand scale like a festival it becomes difficult to actually deal with people on an individual level so while I personally disagree with the blanket banning of transwomen I can understand how these people think it’s the simplest way to attempt to create a safe-space for women.  I honestly can’t think of any alternative other than complete, limitless inclusion when we’re on a grand scale and that has the potential to be just as problematic as complete, limitless exclusion.  So the question becomes which is more important - attempting to create a safe-space for women free of male-entitlement and male-privilege or including all women, some of whom might bring male-entitlement and male-privilege in with them. 

Again, it is heinously prejudicial to just completely exclude all transwomen all the time.  Obviously not all transwomen are filled with male privilege and male entitlement and to just assume that a person will be problematic just because ze was assigned male at birth and socialized male pre-transition is bullshit of the highest caliber.  We all know that it should be about the individuals and that prejudice, stereotyping, and assumptions are hateful, unnecessary, and completely counter-productive.  The point I’m trying to make here is that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed but that doesn’t mean it’s a completely either/or thing.  Transmisogyny and the exclusion of transwomen from woman only spaces is an incredibly complex issue that involves many layers.  It’s not just as simple as “transwomen are women so stop excluding them and if you do you’re just being transmisogynist!” and ignoring the complexity of the issue minimizes and trivializes the legitimate concerns and very real lived experiences of people who have issues with people bringing male privilege and male entitlement into safe spaces.

(via poemsofthedead-deactivated20120)

As long as there are women who face misogynistic attacks from the media; who face rape but the rapists don’t face trial; who are told they are not beautiful unless they are thin; who are paid less than their male counterparts; who are seen as less instead of as more; who are beaten by husbands, boyfriends and fathers; who are unable to receive health care; who cannot escape the confirms of heteronormativity; who are educated to be nurses instead of doctors, teachers instead of engineers, secretaries instead of elected officials; until these and more realities facing women around the world disappear, feminism will remain.

Jen Nedeau (via joyousfeminism)

I agree with everything in this quote except for the teachers and engineers part.

By God teachers are just as wonderful as engineers and are, in fact, in no way lesser positions the way a nurse or a secretary would be.

But yes, feminism. Good, good.

(via textualharassment)

Nurses are just as capable as doctors, and tend to deal directly with patients and help them more. Secretaries work as hard as (sometimes harder than) those who hire them. Job hierarchy has less to do with intelligence or usefulness than scope and income. The statement is that women aren’t given equal opportunity when it comes to positions considered powerful.

(via gender-queer)

^ thank you gender-queer!  I don’t think the point here is to in any way denigrate the positions of teacher, nurse, secretary, or anything else that is traditionally held by people perceived as female.  I think the operative word here is “instead" where a person perceived as female wants to be a doctor or engineer or elected official or any other sort of traditionally male dominated profession/position of power and is told "instead" to do something more "lady-like" such as teacher, nurse, secretary, etc.  There are more stories of shit like that happening than I can count, many of which I’ve heard as direct personal accounts from people I’ve interviewed, and when people in power tell you over and over that you should be something else "instead" it becomes very difficult to actually do the thing you wanted to do in the first place (institutional/systemic sexism).  

Of course, in turn this tends to lead to an undervaluing of traditionally female position within our society but it’s really not an issue of those positions being unimportant or less difficult. It’s an issue of people perceived as female being undervalued and things perceived as feminine being denigrated such that anything associated with femaleness becomes tainted by the grand societal misogyny.  Obviously teachers and nurses and secretaries and all other traditionally female jobs are important, demanding, and require a tremendous amount of skill to perform well. The only reason such positions are relegated to the bottom rung of our social and economic hierarchies is because they’re associated with femininity which is a bullshit fallacy that needs to end.  We have similar issues of denigration with jobs associated with lower class/poor people, people of color, and queer people - all of which are equally problematic and need to end as well.

(via youcancuttheflower)