“My ongoing body of work explores constructions of the masculine within popular culture while using Jamaican dancehall culture as platform for this discourse. My works seeks to measure the masculine by looking at how popular culture as contributed to these transformations.
Expanding my media choices has allowed for multi-dimensional exploration of image, language and gesture in the construct of gender; presenting or deconstructing notions of masculinity and its parallels with the feminine.”
- Ebony G. Patterson in her artist statement

Works from left to right:
Untitled Species VI, 2012
Untitled Species I, 2010-11
Untitled Breed - Gangstas For Life Series, 2008
More works

When the male dancer gradually disappeared from the stages of western European theatres during the period of the Romantic ballet, his place in some cases was taken by the female dancer dressed en travestie. There is a similar disappearance of the male nude as a subject for painting and sculpture, and male forms of dress underwent what J.C. Flugel has brilliantly characterized as ‘the great male renunciation’–the adoption of the plain, black, bourgeois suit. What became conflictual and consequently repressed was anything that might draw attention to the spectacle of the male body.
—  Ramsay Burt, “The Trouble with the Male Dancer…”

“When compared to her later work, The Church and the Second Sex was somewhat passive in that it made a solid case for equality and offered suggestions. Her second book, on the other hand, was less of a suggestion and more of a demand. In Beyond God the Father, Daly’s 1973 follow-up to The Church and the Second Sex, she moves from trying to integrate women into Christian practices to positing that religion is one of the biggest contributors to the oppression of women. The foundation of Beyond God the Father is the argument that Christianity is an entirely patriarchal institution. Among the more prominent arguments in the book, Daly focuses a great deal of attention on the language of Christianity, particularly the ways in which it celebrates men. For example, Daly offers a compelling argument that God is constructed using almost entirely masculine language. This, according to Daly, is problematic because, ’…if God is male, then the male is God.’ In the first paragraph of the first chapter, she writes: If God in ‘his’ heaven is a father ruling 'his’ people, then it is in the 'nature’ of things and according to divine plan and the order of the universe that society be male-dominated.”

- Philosophy 101: Intro to Philosophy/ Humanities Courses/ Mary Daly’s Feminist Alternative to God the Father, Chapter 4, Lesson 20/ Instructor: David White

“no grody implication that sex and gender are inherently linked” {x}

this is so frustrating!  sex can exist without gender, but gender is inherently linked to sex.  don’t erase the fact that gender is constructed around sex - that “masculine” and “feminine” are imposed on male & female.

anonymous asked:

(Re: your last ask) It's not a double standard when you take into account that, based on Patriarchy Theory, "society" is a masculine construct. When viewed through the "men do, women are done to" paradigm, it's internally consistent. The question then becomes "why [does society/do men] market things to women in this way, and market things to [men/themselves] in this way?" Saying "this is the fault of society" becomes the same as saying "this is the fault of men!" It's its own kind of sexism.

Yes if we look at it through a feminist lens then it is not so much a ‘double standard’ you are correct. But of course I consider that viewpoint to be massively flawed.

I just find the whole idea that society is a male construct to be ridiculous. What the fuck were women doing for all these years? They can’t have had no influence on society can they? And if that’s true, if women really really had no effect on society whatsoever than surely that is just backing up traditional gender stereotypes by saying that women are weak and that men are superior?

The idea that men’s and women’s roles in society initially formed through choice rather than nature is beyond me. And I’ve said it before many times - if that’s the case then how did so many different and unconnected societies form separately and yet still have such similar roles for men and women? At some point did different societies look at these things and instead of saying ‘this gender generally doesn’t do this thing’ turn it in to ‘this gender can’t do this thing’? Yeah sure. But was the starting point of gender roles one of choice and design? Absolutely not.

So once we remove the feminist viewpoint that men ‘designed society to suit themselves’ we see that men are just as hemmed in by gender roles as women are. And when we see this, and then we look at feminists scoffing at ‘fragile masculinity’ then we realise exactly how little these feminists care about men, and exactly how little they actually care about ‘equality’ and/or fairness.