talking-over-women-or-for-women

Cis black men that don’t want to talk about sexism and misogyny from black men directed at black women are exactly why we are going to keep talking about it

Because it’s been an issue within black empowerment movements for long enough and while it may seem uncomfortable or inconvenient y'all asses need to learn how to get over it so we can have conversations that strengthen our community. Black women have been riding too goddamn hard for y'all too long and it’s so childish to reduce this conversation to “being petty” when we are getting murdered, harassed and assaulted right along side you

In case you haven’t heard about Michfest...

So for those of you who just blindly follow whatever the hivemind is on Tumblr and reblog whatever seems politically correct without much thought put into it, I really want you to hear about something that is going on right now.

There was this annual festival called “Michfest” that was created for women-born-women to come and share and bond over their experiences growing up, being socialized as, and living as women. There were workshops on domestic violence, talks from rape survivors, and generally it was just a safe place for women to congregate and not have to fear for their safety, because they were among other supportive women. 

So, of course, given that this was labeled as “for women”, transwomen immediately wanted in. They were met with some resistance, but in the end the rule basically became “look, this thing isn’t about you and we would like it if you left it to the female women who are there to discuss experiences which are unique to females (like the way we were raised/socialized in certain ways that males will never understand), but if you want to come, we aren’t banning you, just please be polite and respectful.” When transwomen did show up, if they were polite, they experienced no resistance.

Many of them were not polite. They harassed women, pulled their dicks out in front of little girls in bathrooms (we’re talking four-year-olds), one even carried a homemade spear around to intimidate women with. They ejaculated onto posters, they criticized a memorial for women who were murdered in a specific incident because transwomen were not mentioned in the memorial (despite the fact that there were no transwomen involved in this incident?!?!), they interrupted speeches from rape survivors, they drove some women to leave the festival with their harassment. All because they were discouraged from attending. They weren’t even banned! And given their behavior, which is utterly inexcusable, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t have been banned in hindsight.

Michfest will no longer be happening and they are rejoicing now that women have had what was supposed to be a “safe space” taken from them. Once again, I would like to point out that transwomen were not even banned. As long as they were polite, their attendance was not challenged. They just couldn’t handle that they were not the focus, so they decided to make the women there as miserable as possible until they got their way. Because if they weren’t being accommodated and made comfortable, they would make sure no other woman was comfortable, either.

These are the behaviors and people you support when you trash women - noticeably lesbians more than other women, however -  for wanting a space away from transwomen, or from not wanting to sleep with them, or not wanting to accept them as women that are no different than women-born-women even in spite of violence statistics showing evidence to the contrary. Yes, not all transwomen are like this, but if you were constantly made aware of incidences like what happened at Michfest, and were constantly seeing other women getting harassed online and sent death threats for exercising their right to say no even at ages as young as fourteen, you might develop a bit of a bias, too.

There are bad seeds in every community. They don’t get a pass just because they are (incorrectly) perceived to be the most oppressed, and you are not automatically doing the right thing by always supporting the party you (incorrectly) perceive to be the most oppressed. If you wouldn’t tolerate the behavior from a man and would drag him for it, then stop getting caught up in politically correct bullshit and drag the transwoman for it, too. To refrain from doing so in fear of retribution or out of the false (and very purposefully and carefully crafted by transwomen) perception that you’d be kicking a downed puppy is to do a disservice to women-born-women by continuing to let women be walked all over. Downed puppies are too busy being abused to do the kicking themselves, so chances are that the groups who need some defending are the ones getting sent the death threats and getting harassed, not the groups that are the perpetrators of those actions.

As most feminists know, the Women Against Feminism blog has blown up over the past couple of days. Hundreds of women have taken to social media to discuss why they are against the feminist movement, making arguments along the likes of “I love being a woman,” “I love men,” and “feminism isn’t about equality.” As much as I would love to sit with these women and argue with them over what feminism really is and whether or not they should see it necessary, I want to talk about some of the responses that this got. Mostly, from major news outlets.

Many young girls were the pioneers of this “movement”, and it’s comes as no shock that, despite the fact that feminism seems to be “in the public eye,” it’s definitely still got a string of stigmas attached to it. In fact, I can’t tell you the last time I met someone and immediately started talking feminism with them without hesitating around the F-word. Honestly, most people I know take less offense to f*%k than they do feminism. (Not that either is offensive, but you know, one is labeled as a swear word.)

You see, the first problem with Women Against Feminism is that it views feminism as a movement which oppresses women in and of itself. Most of us know that this is bullhonkey and the people writing the opinion pieces about “the right questions” that Women Against Feminism is asking know this as well. However, no one is rushing to defend our side because we are seen as a scary vacuum that’s come to suck up all the men and create a Herland-esque utopia. Anything that we say from criticizing how men take up too much room on public transportation to critiquing pop culture is deemed irritating and totally unnecessary. Deconstructing harmful practices? Nah, that’s just fem-splained code for “We are going to create female supremacy.”

Read the rest of this piece on bust, where it was first published.

tbh i can see it already; somebody is going to see all the hype about greg saying “women are people” and they’re gonna say smthn along the lines of “yall are freaking out over a male character saying something that is basic common sense” but like

we gotta remember that we are not the target demographic for this show, despite being a large part of its audience. young children are. and even if it seems simple and common sense to us, a young child hearing a male character shoot down another male character for objectifying women and being sexist is really really important!!! we need to look at this show through the eyes a child who is more easily influenced than we are and respect the messages the crewniverse is trying to get across

justthelifeofagirlwithcrps asked:

You know the majority of prolifers aren't like you make us out to be. Sure there's an occasional bad apple as there is in any movement.

The point of the matter is you still want to take away the bodily autonomy of women and the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

And you may want to have a nice long talk with many of your fellow anti-choicers. I have been following the anti-choice movement for over 3 years now. They will say they have compassion for women who have had abortions and then go to their little secret groups to bitch about those sluts who deserve to burn in hell. It was time to expose what these people are really like behind closed doors. It’s not a minority. It’s a fair majority.

anyone who says that women aren’t talked over or interrupted by men on a constant basis needs to watch Shark Tank and play a drinking game every time one of the women billionaires gets cut off or rudley talked over by the men billionaires on that show, it doesn’t matter how much you accomplish, men will still treat you as if what they have to say is more important

I just finished watching a video on my Facebook newsfeed. It was a white girl talking about “why black men prefer white over black women.” After basically telling us that some white women are easy, she made the statement that “white women suck dick” so she was proud of the fact that she is submissive and she sucks dick.. Anyway, I came to the conclusion that SOME black men choose white over black women because they can’t handle a strong black woman, so they go and find an easy white woman….

anonymous asked:

Dear Claudia, sorry to bother you but what does 'a feminist ally' mean? Doesn't supporting feminism automatically make you a feminist? You said that simply agreeing with feminists isn't enough to be an ally, but then what is? If you recognize your privilege and use it to speak up against inequality, aren't you already a feminist? Or is the word feminist only for women? Because I'm not comfortable with such exclusivity, even though I'm a woman myself. Could you plese help me with that? Thank you

There’s debate as to whether men ought to call themselves feminists or feminist allies if they support the movement. To be honest I don’t mind men being called feminists, but I can understand the other side of the argument. I think people are (rightfully) wary that a man can label himself Feminist, get a load of praise for it, feel super progressive, maybe wear a t-shirt with a feminist slogan (made by underpaid women somewhere), start correcting women/talking over women/looking down on certain women/judging women in the name of Feminism, be given a greater platform than women, and then actually continue to be misogynistic in many ways without learning, changing, and listening to the people he claims to want to help. 

I prefer the term feminist ally just because it shows great sensitivity to the issue and an awareness of male privilege in feminist spaces. 

Men who acknowledge their privilege and use it to fight oppression and inequality and amplify the voices of women are feminists, in my opinion. But I think it’s a title you have to earn and can’t just give yourself. Although many give themselves it in an act of solidarity so I’m not furiously opposed to it, just wary. 

Actions speak louder than words when it comes to male feminists/feminist allies. Unfortunately for the lovely ones (of which there are many) there are also a great deal of awful ones that are huge misgonynists that just want a pat on the back and an excuse to bully women that have absorbed internalised misogyny. 

It’s a difficult situation really. But as I say, I don’t mind men calling themselves feminists as long as their actions back them up. The concern is when they get the title but don’t do the work or challenge their own privilege. 

The only thing I would say with regard to the whole title thing, is that if a man threatens to withdraw his support for feminism just because he is told by some feminists that he cannot take the title of Feminist, then he should not be trusted and is clearly not really here for gender equality and liberation.  

xxx

Black Feminism Thought Submissions

Special Issue Call on Black Feminist Thought for Departures in Critical Qualitative Research
The deadline for submissions is Friday July 3, 2015.
Cultivating Promise and Possibility: Black Feminist Thought as an Innovative, Interdisciplinary, and International Framework

Guest Editor: Rachel Alicia Griffin, PhD, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Created by Patricia Hill Collins over 20 years ago, Black Feminist Thought (BFT) has flourished in multiple disciplines including sociology, English, political science, psychology, education, law, history, philosophy, Africana studies, mass communication, and communication studies. Since its inception, BFT has served as a key means to unapologetically center the embodied knowledge of Black women and foster opportunities for Black women to “talk back” to systemic oppression(s). To honor the legacy of BFT and propel its theoretical and methodological significance into the future, this special issue will feature critical, qualitative, and performative works that productively utilize, challenge, and extend BFT.

Essays in this special issue will be characterized by:


1.  Innovative approaches to critical, qualitative research (e.g., theoretically, methodologically, representationally, aesthetically, etc.).


1.  Rich, nuanced, and complex insights into and/or applications of BFT.


1.  Provocative uses of critical and qualitative methods to challenge and extend BFT.

Exemplars of how BFT can be industriously challenged and extended include works that:

* Address the rich contributions of Black girls/adolescents/women to society opposed to a singular focus on what is done to Black girls/adolescents/women by society.

* Focus on Black girlhood and/or adolescence given that the majority of BFT scholarship focuses on Black womanhood.

* Center Black femininity as a positionality that reflects raced and gendered marginalization and privilege (i.e., Black females can be marginalized by race and gender and simultaneously privileged by nationality, sexuality, ability, religion, etc.).

* Deconstruct the reproduction of privileged ideologies and discourses (e.g., classism, homophobia, ableism, Christian hegemony, etc.) in the marginalized context of Black womanhood.

* Critique BFT’s cisgender normativity (e.g., rarely are Black trans and/or Black gender queer women centered, included, addressed, etc.).

* Politically mark BFT as US American BFT (i.e., how might we deeply respect the canon of US American BFT while being accountable to how US American and Western ethnocentrism often render Black women from beyond Western societies invisible and silent?).

* Draw upon African feminisms, Black internationalist feminism, third world feminisms, and/or postcolonial feminisms to theorize Black femininity in global, transnational, and/or diasporic contexts.

* Explore considerably under-theorized intersections of Black femininity such as race, gender, and age; race, gender, religion, and nationality; race, gender, and ability; etc.

* Explore considerably under-theorized topics in the realm of BFT including but not limited to: conservative and/or Republican Black female rhetoric; new media and digital technology; progressive alliances within the Black community; parenthood and parenting; coalitional praxis between Black women and other collectives of women of color; linkages between BFT, womanism, Chicana feminisms, Arab feminisms, African feminisms, etc.; “post-” identity politics; ideological and discursive emphasis on Black masculinity at the expense of Black femininity; sexist, patriarchal, and misogynistic erasure of Black females espoused by Black males; etc.

Faculty and graduate students are welcome to submit manuscripts. The deadline for submissions is Friday July 3, 2015. All authors should conform to the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010), identify their essay as a “BFT Special Issue Submission,” and submit manuscripts electronically via ScholarOne: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ucpress-departures

Manuscripts should be prepared in MS Word (a PC-compatible version) using 12-point Times New Roman font, should be double-spaced, and should not exceed 9,000 words including notes. Manuscript title pages should be submitted as a separate file and include: (1) the title of the essay, (2) any acknowledgments, including the history of the manuscript if any part of it has been presented at a conference or included as part of a thesis or dissertation, and (3) author bio(s) of not more than 100 words each. Manuscripts should include: (1) the title of the essay, (2) an abstract of not more than 100 words, (3) a list of five suggested keywords, and (4) an accurate word count (including notes). Images, figures, and other ancillary materials should be submitted as separate files and conform to the Departures instructions for file size and format (see below).

Authors of accepted manuscripts will be responsible for clearing the necessary reproduction rights for any images, photos, figures, music, or content credited to a third party (including content found on the Internet), that fall outside of the fair use provisions described in US copyright law. Authors of accepted manuscripts will be asked to provide separate image and grayscale TIF files at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi, line art should be submitted as Illustrator EPS files at a resolution of 600 to 1200 dpi and in bitmap mode. Please do not embed images or grayscale or line art in Word files.
Essays will be reviewed by a Special Issue Editorial Board and should not be under review by any other publication venue. To inquire about this special issue, please contact:

Rachel Alicia Griffin, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Communication Studies
Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies-cross-appointed
Africana Studies-cross-appointed
Southern Illinois University
Communications Building 2205
1100 Lincoln Drive, Mailcode 6605
Carbondale, IL 62901
rachelag@siu.edu<mailto:rachelag@siu.edu>



Dean: When’s she getting off?

Sam: In a few minutes, just be patient.

Y/N: -Walking out of the building, girls talking about to guys and an “old car”. You immediately look for the Impala, as well as the moose and squirrel. Your face breaking into a grin as you see both of them.-

The women: -Talking shit on why someone like you is walking towards the gorgeous men.-

Y/N: -You over hear and began to frown, walking slower. Walking up to them you mumble out a small ‘Hi’- 

Sam: -Wraps his arms around your frame.- Not the welcome I was expecting. They were saying something weren’t they? -He motions over towards the women that were whispering to each other-

Y/N: -You nod slowly. As soon as you do, to large hands cup your cheeks. A pair of warm lips pressing to yours. The kiss being both passionate and feverish- 


Requests are open, go on ahead and request please *0*

Much love!<3

What I mean to say is that so many artists are so invested in the idea that evil is more interesting than good. Good characters are boring, simple, trite shallow. Milton gave Satan the best soliloquies. Every villain from the Wicked Witch to Loki to Maleficent gets their own tragic backstory. 

Think about the best people in your like: the ones most full of goodness. Are they easy to imitate? Goodness is ignored not because it’s boring, but because it’s hard. 

There’s this line from the movie CALVARY where a character says, “I’m a lost cause” and the eminently emulatable Fr. James says, “No one is a lost cause”. We’ve heard that line so many time, in so many permutations, but the specific delivery caught me off guard. It was almost frustrated, because why should he even have to say it? It’s the height of ignorance to think your sin and darkness is so extreme that it cannot be redeemed! Get over yourself! 

Give me Miss Pettigrew, Father James, Abbess Catherine, Gabriel Syme, and George Bailey. Don’t tell me Eowyn is fundamentally more interesting than Arwen because Eowyn’s darker or twistier! The Baudelaires are children and still choose charity, justice, and excellent cuisine over vengeance. I want characters that suffer, and still choose good unflinchingly!

If you think evil is more interesting than good, think harder. 

anonymous asked:

Do closeted nonbinary people have more or less privellage that those who are outed? Or are they about equal?

I mean, the answer to both of your questions is basically “no”. 

The thing is, privilege discourse is completely inadequate for talking about these situations. 

Privilege discourse is only appropriate for discussing when one group of people materially benefits from the exploitation of another group of people. For example, men materially benefit from the exploitation of women. Men have privilege over women. White people materially benefit from the exploitation of people of color. We have white privilege. 

Closeted nonbinary people do not materially benefit from the exploitation of nonbinary / trans folks who are not in the closet. And being forcibly gendered is in no way a privelege. 

Instead, closeted folks get access to a series of shitty bargains that people who are read as trans do not get access to (i.e. “do I say something about the blatant transphobia and out myself, thus exposing myself to more violence, or do I stay quiet and remain complicit while at the same time suffering from that transphobia?”).

So closeted people are given the choice between two shitty alternatives, while people who are read as trans don’t get those choices. That’s the difference.

Does this make sense?

–Margot 

Research on the Wage Gap in America

So I’ve done my own research and here are my conclusions on what the wage gap actually is in America.

First of all there is no direct pay gap between a man and a woman working the same job.

Not only is it illegal as of 1963 (shake the hands of second wave feminists for that!) but there has been no actual study to compare a paycheck of a man and a woman working the same job side by side.

These statistics come from the median of income men earn vs women in all fields. It’s basically, “How much do women earn as a whole and how much do men earn as a whole?”

Read this report (it’s a pdf so be prepared to open up a download). It talks about the disparity in wages between men and women. Something interesting to note from it is, “The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.“

So what does this mean? You can interpret whether women working different jobs are generally entering less paying fields as men is a wage gap in itself. I personally believe that this does not constitute a wage gap because there’s not a foreseeable solution of each workplace being divided completely 50% men and women each.

So at this point it is clear that if we are to see these statistics as valid, we can no longer view the wage gap as how much a man and a woman earn in the same job. And compare their paychecks. It is rather the gender pay gap has been attributed to differences in personal and workplace characteristics between women and men (education, hours worked, occupation etc.) as well as direct and indirect discrimination in the labor market (gender stereotypes, customer and employer bias etc.).

One source.

Second source. Also a PDF watch out!

Many economists criticize this research because of inconclusive data and no actual answer to the question: Is there a direct pay gap in America?

So what can we conclude from this?

So despite the possibility of there being a pay gap of a woman and a man working the same job, there is no conclusive evidence on the wage gap existing in that specific context. As well as anecdotally, two people have never compared a paycheck just to see what’s what.

Now things that do exist: Discrimination depending on where you work, for both men and women. A woman would obviously still face a lot of workplace sexism if she enters a male dominated workforce, but we cannot forget the counter to that with men doing the same thing. Sexism is obviously not over in America. But these are problems that can be attributed more along to the individual level of both men and women who make their own choices when it comes to career, rather than a woman working the same job as a man and being payed less.

In conclusion:

A direct pay gap does not exist.

There are factors that constitute female dominated and male dominated fields however, and as the statistic pointed out, men tend to pursue higher paying careers. Take this as you wish. But honestly, it really does boil down to people being able to make their own choice and decide how important career is to them. And I think that’s far more important than countless statistics that are constantly misconstrued and taken for something else.

i’m still mad

“don’t gain any more weight, okay” like i’m supposed to THANK her for this UNPROMPTED ‘HELPFUL ADVICE’. 

-confession- I’ve seems a lot of race-related issues on tumblr and on the news lately and I feel like I can’t take it anymore. The discussion of race issues in America will forever be dragged on but nothing will be done. It’s so draining and depressing seeing and talking about the same thing over and over. I wanna be like those white people who think we’re treated equally to them and turn a blind eye to all of this. Everyday realization strikes again but more strongly that racism is forever…

Also I think that what anon doesn’t seem to realize is that whether or not Sophie Hunter ever knows a damned thing about what is said about her or whether or not she knows people defended her is irrelevant.  This isn’t necessarily just about her. This IS about this specific community, and fandom, and the larger community as a whole, and the way women talk about each other and how we react when another woman has something we desire, whether it be a man or a job or a lifestyle.  It’s also about the examples being set by older women.  I have seen this happen over and over again in many different fandoms , though not to this degree. I’ve seen it happen in real life.  There is a larger context beyond this particular person and I can guarantee all of this would be ten times worse if she were a woman of color or from a  different socioeconomic background.   And no, we’re not trying to change the world with this blog but it IS something worth commenting on and I think that trying to trivialize that is suspect.

themoreimisstheground asked:

I was doing some reading in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and was wondering what your take on it was. I know there are several places in the Bible where it talks about men/women and their roles, but I find it really hard to understand. What do you think?

Hello dear friend, please allow me the grace to point you to this post:

- Mega-Post: Female Pastors, Neo-Feminism, and The Scary Words Submission, Quiet, and Penis

Please forgive the snarky title, I was a little bit more “click-baity” back then.

I know that most of us will never see eye to eye on this, but from my biblical understanding –

- All these verses have a specific context. If men use them to lord over women or if women use it to say the Bible is bigoted, both those assertions are giving the wrong kind of ammo for very wrong conclusions.

- Both men and women taught/led/preached in the Bible. I believe they can do that now. End of story.

- Men and women are different. People are different. They each have equal value and occasionally different (not lesser and not weaker) roles. Both men and women can certainly do anything that each other can do. But to streamline them into the same kind of person is to distort individuality and crush the unique spirit of genders. I know that’s not a popular opinion today, but if we can just strip away all the Western privilege of postmodern offendedness and philosophical rumination (since my starving Eastern brothers and sisters don’t even have time to think about that), I hope we can celebrate our biology and the uniqueness it offers, instead of being enslaved by the fear of social gate-keepers. I hope we can also break free from “traditional gender roles,” since this keeps changing throughout history.

- If the Bible is used to diminish a certain person, it’s not really from the Bible. I can promise you that. Every kind of dehumanization was ended at the cross, where Jesus crossed all dividing lines and exposed both our great need and our greatest fulfillment. There’s nothing less we could get from that than equal dignity for all people.

– J.S.

professional-pen-thief asked:

have you read 'Shikhandi and other tales they don't tell you' by Devdutt Pattanaik?

We haven’t, but it looks really interesting!

Patriarchy asserts that men are superior to women, feminism clarifies that women and men are equal, and queerness questions what constitutes male and female. One of the few people to talk frankly and sensitively about queerness and religion, celebrated Indian mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik explains that queerness isn’t only modern, Western, or sexual. Rather, by looking at the vast written and oral traditions of Hinduism, he finds many overlooked tales with queerness at their center, some over two thousand years old. There’s Shikhandi, who became a man to satisfy her wife; Mahadeva, who became a woman to deliver her devotee’s child; Chudala, who became a man to enlighten her husband; Samavan, who became the wife of his male friend—and many, many more.
In Shikhandi, and Other Tales They Don’t Tell You, Pattanaik recounts these stories and explores the importance of mythologies in understanding the modern Indian mindset. Playful, touching, and sometimes disturbing, when Shikhandi’s stories are compared with their Mesopotamian, Greek, Chinese, and Biblical counterparts, they reveal the unique Indian way of making sense of queerness.

~ Ellie