I could never hate men as much as they hate women
the ‘pop punk” culture is so gross and misogynistic even though the fan bases of these bands are mostly made up of mostly women, you always hear about the misogyny in rap music but the misogyny in alternative music never gets brought up… i wonder why.. oh wait no .. i know why
We call ships ‘she.’ We call our war machines ‘women.’ We compare women to black widows and vipers. And you’re going to tell me it’s not ‘lady-like’ to scream, to take up space, to fight and demand respect and do whatever the hell I want. You’ve looked at nuclear bombs and been so in awe that you could only name them after women. Don’t try to down-play my power.
i understand the need to reclaim power and strength for women but i feel like this rubs me the wrong way because it’s just so de-contextualized as a statement?
first: we call machines “she” because they can be controlled and operated. we call them she because men see objects as things just like they see women as things. on a meta level, it’s easy to say that the need to call weapons of war she has to do with 1.) massive homophobia in modern industrialized warfare and militaries (and even every day society, like men calling their cars ‘girls’) and 2.) the idea that war is meant to de-masculinize and devastate the opponent. It is a humiliation that is understood on a subconscious level.
second: i don’t know what nuclear bombs you’re talking about, but the only nuclear bombs dropped onto people were called “fat boy” and “little man”. it doesn’t take a huge stretch to point out the phallic shape associated with nuclear warfare.
third: women are called vipers and black widows because uh…they’re constantly coded as malicious, treacherous, sexual, and murderous beings who pose a threat to men? last time I checked, the “black widow” who preys upon rich men, marries them, and then murders them for their money was not a flattering or empowering term.
this is why i was so upset that when discussions of weapons & women/the feminine came about it seemed to call this all positive and empowering instead of fundamentally identifying the societal coding of women and their sexuality as dangerous and evil (particularly in the west), and to identity how women in the media are coded as objects and tools of sexual/destructive force either to society, or men or masculinity in general. (see also: fragility of masculinity, the harlot, the madonna/whore complex, the black widow, the gold digger, the slut, the siren, the succubus, vagina dentata, bridezilla, dragon lady, welfare queen, the hairy lesbian, etc tropes/slurs/stereotypes ALL of which directly related to sexuality or lack thereof or coded “mis-used” sexuality.)
last: i do not want to be an atom bomb. i am not an imprint or an echo of the destructive forces of the patriarchy and have no desire to be associated with black widows or vipers or war machines. my interest in destruction of societal norms which harm people cannot be equated to an industrial military complex, neither can my sexuality or my being.
it is not the same kind of power, it is not the same kind of force.
we can be powerful without wearing the masks of men.
I need feminism; because the bra straps of a twelve year old shouldn’t make a 40 year old married principal with two daughters “uncomfortable”
So am I allowed to walk around adult women who are mothers and grandmothers at work with my cock out or what
in what world is someone’s dick equivalent to a fucking bra strap
Why #gamergate is important
Fun fact: Morgan Ramsay, founder of the Entertainment Media Counsel, did an objective study of how much of gaming journalism talks about sexism or social justice.
To do this, he downloaded 130,524 articles from 37 RSS feeds of 23 outlets, including The Escapist, Rock Paper Shotgun, CVG, Edge Online, Eurogamer, Gamasutra, Game Informer, GamePolitics, GamesBeat, GamesIndustry International, GameSpot, GamesRadar, IGN, IndieGames, Joystiq, Kotaku, Massively, MCV, NowGamer, PocketGamer.biz, Polygon, Shacknews and VG24/7, published over a period of twelve months. He then did a search on how often these games articles mentioned sexism, feminism, or misogyny.
The result? Over a period of one year, 0.41% of 130,524 articles referenced feminism, feminist, sexism, sexist, misogyny, and misogynist explicitly.
That’s less than half of one percent.
So next time you hear someone whining that “feminism is taking over video games journalism”, what they’re actually whining about is that feminism exists in video games journalism.
Gender does not exist. Sexually distinctive behaviors do exist, for example: Females lactate and males do not, though both are mammals. Sexually distinctive behaviors are different from gender because gender is a culturally variant phenomenon, whereas breastfeeding is something that happens everywhere. In the animal kingdom, there are many sexually distinctive behaviors displayed by animals of both sexes, but to confuse these ingrained, instinctive mating display behaviors with something as complex and culturally variant as gender is absurd. Humans are not frogs, fruit flies, ducks, or bonobos. Gender dictates that women behave differently from men, and this behavior varies by culture. Patriarchy requires gender to exist, which is why all patriarchal cultures use gender. The study of the baboons actually brings home the idea that aggressive behavior in males is not inherent, as when the alpha male baboons died out, they were replaced with male baboons who were “nice guys”, and were not aggressive. The young males were socialized to be pacifists, and obviously it worked, and they were. It’s very encouraging because it means that gendered, aggressive male behavior (alpha male BS) is not ingrained, but learned, and that all it would take for humans to achieve a similar result would be to poison all the alpha males and wait a generation… (just kidding).
Anyway, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as inherent gender in humans. Because human behavior is so richly varied, and gender roles themselves vary by culture, it is impossible that gendered behaviors be inherent in one sex or the other. As such, it is also impossible for them to be misplaced. I am not naturally nurturing any more than all men are naturally violent. Men who are more nurturing, kind, soft, sweet etc, are not “women” on the inside (though they’re A-OK in my book… we need more soft men). They are simply displaying normal human emotions and behaviors. Their gender is not “misplaced”, but they and society at large presume that the behaviors they display, because they are more commonly associated with females, is the result of them being female “on the inside”. I have known many different kinds of women. Some of them wore dresses and engaged in “girly” behaviors, and some of them didn’t shave, enjoyed rock climbing, and hated babies. They were all women because they were all adult human females, but they did not all share the same “feminine essence” that everyone associates with womanhood. None of the more “butch” women believed they were not women simply because their behaviors were more “mannish”. You can’t be fluid and “play gender like jazz” if you honestly believe that picking from one of two constraining boxes is true freedom. Gender nonconformity is one of the bravest things people in our society can do. I’m visibly a very feminine-looking woman, but I’ve chosen to stop shaving, and it’s interesting how similar I look to a male… most female grooming activities are carried out to make women look as different from men as possible, and I’m trying to stop performing gender for its own sake.
If gender is truly as fluid as you say it is and there is no right or wrong way to be a woman, how do you know you really are a woman on the inside? What is a woman? Describe it to me without falling back on stereotypes, and you’ll find that the only thing that defines woman is sex. That does not make me a sexual determinist. I don’t feel that sex affects abilities, likes, or dislikes, nor does it affect social behavior. Everyone is so very different that sexual determinism (gender), even if it is supposedly “fluid”, places limits on people. Why should it be fluid when it could just as easily not exist at all? The only solution to the oppression of women is the destruction of patriarchy, and the only way to destroy patriarchy is to undermine gender, not make it more “flexible”.
Gender is a social construct in the same way that race is. The color of a person’s skin makes no difference in their abilities or personality, but our society ascribes much importance to skin color through institutionalized racism. Because of this, the color of a person’s skin matters very much socially. Because gender works the same way, a person’s sex matters very much socially. Because I am female in a patriarchal, male dominated, gendered world, my sex matters and is relevant in terms of how I am treated and perceived by society at large. I have been catcalled, groped, and harassed by adult men in public when I was still a girl. They didn’t do this because I “identify” as a girl. They did this because I am female in a culture that is both misogynistic and male-dominated, and because they were socialized to be aggressive, entitled narcissists who are placed in a higher social position over women and girls by default. This socialization is called gender, and my socialization taught me to shrink, to be silent, to not question it because “boys will be boys”. Gendered socialization enables patriarchy to exist. Making the boxes more flexible or making new boxes does not question the hegemony of gender or the oppressive nature of patriarchy (and industrial capitalism), which kills thousands daily (most notably girls and women, but also indigenous people and POC) and destroys the environment at an alarming rate, making our planet toxic, dead and unliveable. All of these things are intertwined. Gender is not harmless expression.”
if you think of patriarchy as a whole heap of weeds in your garden, liberal feminism might cut them occasionally, but patriarchy will keep growing back. radical feminism grabs patriarchy by the roots and pulls the weeds out completely, so they will never grow back again.
liberal feminism spray paints the weeds in pretty colours and throws glitter all over them whilst trampling the struggling flowers into the dirt
Queer theory take the weeds and claim they are flowers, even better than those “privileged” flowers