sexist laws

“Woman’s degradation is in mans idea of his sexual rights. Our religion, laws, customs, are all founded on the belief that woman was made for man.” 

- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, American social activist, abolitionist, and leading figure of the early women’s rights movement 

TW for rape, child marriage, domestic violence

From needing a husband’s permission to leave the house in Yemen, to being banned from driving trucks in Russia: The anti-women laws still in place around the world

  • New Equality Now campaign highlights brutal anti-women laws in existence
  • Activism group say women’s rights haven’t progressed in two decades
  • Laws include permitting marital rape and forbidding women from driving

“The list includes well-documented laws such as women being unable to drive in Saudi Arabia alongside lesser known anti-women legislation.

For example, in Russia, Article 253 of the country’s Labor Code bars women from working in 456 types of work including driving a train or being a professional sailor.

In Tunisia, women’s inheritance rights are limited; a son will inherit twice as much as a female offspring.

And even the UK features on the list; for its ruling that women can’t join the Royal Marines.

And shocking legislation relating to domestic violence and rape continues to be at the fore of the group’s campaign with countries including India, the Bahamas and Singapore still rarely prosecuting marital rape - and often with girls in their early teens the victims.”

See the full list here (link TW for rape, child marriage, CSA, domestic violence)



This video of Ruth Bader Ginsburg talking about feminism is even better than you hoped

  • RBG on the sheer staggering dumbness of overt sexism: “In the U.S. Attorney’s office, women were strictly forbidden in the criminal division. There was one woman in the civil division. And the excuse for not hiring women in the criminal division was ‘they have to deal with all these tough types and women aren’t up to that.’ And I was amazed! I said, 'have you seen the lawyers from Legal Aid who are representing these tough types? They are women!’”
  • RBG on how we’ll know when there are enough women on the Supreme Court: “When there are nine!”


Watch the video here - it’s only 1:50 mins!

Shout out to Dollar General!

Congrats on hiring a sex offender who is also sexist and discriminates against employees! No wonder there is such a high turnover! You can’t even get a store manager who isn’t sexist and who doesn’t harrass employees! I especially love how being a victim of that harrasment means absolutely nothing and there will be no follow up and no punishment for the person who created a hostile work environment! Its also super cool how working for Dollar General means that labor laws are violated along with the ADA. Do you have a doctor’s note outlining your disability? Well you might as well forget about it because everyone in management has! Apparently, a discount store also means discount ethics. Congrats on running a shady, sexist business! Don’t worry DG, as an employee I let my friends know when your sexist staff is working so they can at least be protected!

So today I told a very stunned male coworker that rapists are most often than not men close to the victim. He genuinely believed the “stranger in an alley myth” and kept bringing the false accusations argument as to why sexist laws are implemented. I work with this guy. He knows I’m a feminist and he never misses an opportunity to make sexist jokes. Mostly, I put up with it because this job isn’t an ideal place for political discourse. I just reply with sass (I also threw a glass of water in his face, lmao). Today, he went into the rape jokes. Some humorous comment about being abused by an uncle. Which reminded of another of our males coworkers who made the exact same joke to a woman whom I know was abused by her uncle. She was incredibly hurt. They don’t know, of course. How could they possibly. They’ve been taught that these things happen to other people. That they’re isolated incidents. Thing is, men like them aren’t bad. But it comes as news to them. It’s just not their reality. It’s something come from a tv show. They don’t see it. They don’t see that all women are the other people. They don’t see it because they are on the side of the perpetrators. Their violence may not be physical, but it’s in the words they speak, it’s in the thoughts and the opinions they have. They keep the myths alive, they silence and shame women. They’re part of the problem. But, they don’t know. They just don’t know.

  • Mulan: a woman goes against all the sexist laws and joins the war and becomes a war hero and earns the trust of thousands
  • Everyone: .
  • Pocahontas: a woman helps protect her land from invading english armies and saves her tribe
  • Everyone: .
  • Tiana: a black woman owns a successful independent restaurant in the 20's
  • Everyone: .
  • Anna: is a total woman stereotype who is blinded by a man and then kinda saves her sister by being a totally shallow generic female character

By continuing to do business in countries with sexist laws violating human rights, and by following the aforementioned laws, corporations such as Starbucks continue to profit from oppression.

No matter how many “ethically sourced” ingredients are in their products, the fact remains that Starbucks financially benefits from having franchises in which women are literally treated like second-class citizens.

Remember this the next time you order that venti caramel frappuccino.


I’m no princess, queen or anything like that. Captain is more than enough!

[ BONUS: Princess Tashigi! ]

[ Headcanon time: I’ve read that theory about Zoro being a lost prince from Wano, and when I read a theory, my brain automatically tries to relate it with Tashigi. So I thought: It would be cool if Tashigi was also a lost princess who ran away because the sexist laws of her country didn’t allow her to become a swordswoman (it would also be cool if they had to get married to unify their kingdom at the end, but that’s another story) ]


Reply to Reybunss

@reybunss So I’m against feminism because it isn’t about gender equality and it doesn’t see men and women as individuals; it’s about the belief that all men are women’s oppressors, and this has been the case sense ever since the first wave. And this belief has motivated feminists to use government to make gender inequality work for women. 

My masterpost on the subject, which elaborates on the ways feminists have made gender inequality worse:

But there were things I didn’t elaborate in it, so I’ll do so now

Mary Wollstonecraft, mother of Feminism,herself said in the Vinidcation of the Rights of Women that women are oppressed and have always been so. Now her solution to gender inequality was resonable (end sexist laws) but the fact that she only saw women that needed gender equality meant that was still of the mark. 

From her book:

And thats not all; Charlotte Perkins Gilman, another big-name first waver, believed that men are women’s oppressors, and that the solution to women’s oppression was to have women-domination because women’s mother instinct would make them more benevolent. And also that it works for bee’s.

And this is what she had to say about “Androcentric” (Patriarchal) family, which sums up her views nicely:

And then theres of course the Declaration of Sentiments, which literally lists all the ways all men oppress women. 

Now, a common come-back I recieve from feminsits, especially when I bring up rape and domestic violence is that “Patriarchy hurts men too because of Gender Roles” and my reponse to that is this: 

If we turely lived in a society where all men are working together to maintain a society that favors them over women, then men would never be oppressed because they literally control the system, and if men did have their rights violated, it would be taken care of immediately. 

And if the PAtriarchy really cared about gender roles, then it would still punish abusive wives and female rapists since both literally go against the female gender role, which demands women be nurturing and submissive.

About your Individualist-question, which was: “does that mean you believe in everyone stripping stereotypical labels and just being accepted for who they really are?”

That is apart of it, yes, but  it’s more than just “don’t follow stereotypical labels” and more about “don’t think a person is evil just because that person happens to be apart of this race, that gender, or have this sexuality”.

Now, I do think that sex-hormones, sex-organs, and sexual-desire*  do push the genders into seperate fields sometimes, but all that means is that I’m not going to be surprised if a woman favors work-life balance or that a man wants to work full time, it doesn’t mean I demand that men and women act a certain way. 

*By “sexual desire” I mean what most str8 men and women want: most str8 women want a man with backbone, muscle, and successful career, while msot str8 men want a woman who’s busty, curvy, and not-a-bitch. Which means that when a man knows that women prefer a man to have a backbone, muscle, and a succesfull career, then he’s going to try and attain them. So you can see how woman’s sexual desire, for example, will push some men into behaving more “traditonally” 


Because no one’s done it yet, I thought it was time we had a Princess appreciation post for Jasmine.

First off, her story isn’t about not wanting to marry. Sure her story revolves around being forced into marriage, but it isn’t what she really wants. She says she’s never been outside the palace walls, that she’s told how to speak and how to dress and she’s being forced to get married on top of it all. Jasmine doesn’t want to stay single, she longs for the freedom to make her own decisions and be her own person. She’s playful and sassy and says what’s on her mind rather than being submissive because she wants to be heard. And that’s why her ending is so important, because the boy she chose came from the ends of the earth and battled an all powerful dark sorcerer just to save her, even if he couldn’t legally marry her, even when he could have backed out and left them. And her father sees that she’s right, that maybe she doesn’t need a prince to be better off, and it ends with Jasmine choosing Aladdin.

And let’s talk about how progressive she is? Because I love how on a site like this people still call her the “slutty princess”. Jasmine speaks her mind, she fights laws and social norms she knows are hypocritical and wrong, and she stands up for herself. She knows how sexist the law is that she has to marry a prince, and she rebels. Instead of doing what everyone tells her to, she wears what she likes, says what she wants, and does whatever she can to live her life in the restrictive environment she’s forced to live in, and that’s why she ran away: Because she reached a point where she couldn’t live in the palace and be herself anymore. Which brings up another thing:

She is so wonderfully flawed. Jasmine’s stubborn, sarcastic, she jumps to conclusions, and she does things without thinking. She sees Ali is another jerk and refuses to speak with him, and after A Whole New World she snaps at him for lying to her. It doesn’t matter if they sang, she still thinks he’s only after her money or her power and she’s not afraid to let him know what’s up. And let’s talk about the fact she continuously defies Jafar after he steals the lamp. Because even knowing he could kill her or hurt her father or destroy the kingdom, she defies him even though it’s a poor move. Or how about when she runs away? Because wow, how irresponsible do you have to be if you’re going to leave your kingdom without someone to keep the line going? Let’s face it, if she hadn’t gone back Jafar would be Sultan within the week.

But despite that she’s still compassionate, girly, kind and gracious, caring and headstrong, brave and good. She’s flawed and selfish but she’s still a good character, and above all the idea that you should fight for your right to live your life for yourself and make your own choices is still one I think everyone can get behind.

tl;dr Jasmine’s not just the stereotypical one-dimensional princess she’s advertised as and deserves more respect for sticking up for herself.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible choice to run this country. She is bought out by companies in the same way you make fun of republicans for. She won’t even reveal her stance on Keystone until she becomes president. Does that sound the least bit trustworthy to you? She keeps changing her views on gay rights, being anti gay even when she ran against Obama 2008.

And electing her in the primaries over someone else solely based on sex is sexist. 

“Free the Nipple” is about so much more than bare breasts

Most American cities are full of breasts. They are everywhere: On billboards. On storefronts. On buildings. But if you look closely, there’s consistently one thing missing: nipples. Although a handful of states technically allow women to go completely topless, those in many places can be arrested for doing so.

That’s something Lina Esco is combatting with Free the Nipple, a movement she founded to fight against sexist public nudity laws that unfairly target women. But don’t be fooled, this issue is more than skin deep. 

He actually says this shit
  • My sexist father in law: Women should obey their husbands.
  • What I say: Wow. Really. Just wow.
  • What I want to say: You should obey your husband.
  • Me: I'm a good cook but a terrible housekeeper.
  • My sexist father in law: All women are terrible housekeepers.
  • What I say: No. Just no.
  • What I want to say: I think we both know that statement is inherently incorrect, and seeing as it's mostly *your* junk that's lying around the place, you're a pretty terrible housekeeper yourself.
  • Me: *goes to college and gets a degree and also happens to get married*
  • My sexist father in law: All women go to college just to get a husband.
  • Me: How do you know? You never went to college.
  • My sexist father in law: *is cleaning out his hoarder-status garage with the help of my wonderful, selfless husband and there's a huge mess and it's taking all day and I'm hungry so I want to expedite the process so we can go have dinner*
  • Me: Can I help you guys?
  • My sexist father in law: This stuff is too heavy for a girl. You can just stand there and look beautiful.
  • What I say: *silently tries not to blow chunks on the pavement*
  • What I want to say: You can just stand there and continue to spew liquid shit out your mouth or you can let me help you excavate your mold-encrusted deluxe electric motor chrome finish asswiper you bought off an infomercial in the Bronze Age so I can go have some goddamn food.

I’ve noticed that the same feminists who get mad at anti-feminism-pro-equality ‘s url are the same feminists who acknowledge that other feminists make and support sexist laws against men (though they claim that those aren’t real feminists >_>), make fun of men and men’s issues, then laugh and claim that misandry doesn’t exist.

Like…do you not realize that you are an example of why that url exists?

anonymous asked:

"I fundamentally disagree with Islam and that you can do what you want, but that I think you being Muslim is wrong and don’t support it." - tbh, that's what I think. I mean, it's a religion with a long history (& present) of oppression, views women as cattle, etc. As a woman, I can never agree w. that & honestly, if you subscribe to that religion you *do* support it. SO. Plus, it *is* a choice, so there's no excuse.

So do you disagree with Christianity like you do with Islam? Because Christianity is also a religion with a long history of oppression, and plenty of present oppression as well, even if it doesn’t manifest itself in something as visually apparent as a hijab. Think of the women who were historically sold off as property to their husbands through Christian ceremonies; of all the countries that created sexist laws on the basis of biblical scripture, dozens more than the number of Islamic nations; of the women who were shipped off to convents for premarital sex and stoned for it in the centuries before that; of the girls being married off at freshly 18 as a third wife in Utah; of the Vatican, the only nation in the world with an exclusively male population; of the women in the deep south who believe that their only inherent purpose is to be a wife and a mother and that their husband should call all the shots. Feminism at its finest, I’m sure.

And if you want to talk religious texts, the Quran actually lays out more expansive rights for women than the Bible. The literal point of Jesus coming to Earth was to save humanity because a woman who was created from a man’s rib fucked up in a garden at the beginning of time, and for centuries upon centuries, the belief that women carried Eve’s burden and guilt held strong.

Meanwhile, the Quran tells women to dress modestly so that men don’t sin by lusting after them. The reason men have less stringent clothing restrictions is actually because women are considered more morally trustworthy than men in the eyes of Allah. The Quran also details divorce proceedings, property ownership rights for women, dowry rules that favor women, and required full equality for any women in a polygamous marriage, all of which are things the Bible lacks entirely. At the end of the day, the Quran as a text is far more modern than the Bible when it comes to feminism.

But of course, if you ask any random person whether all Christians are inherently anti-feminist because their religion is built on anti-feminist doctrine which shaped a supremely anti-feminist Western history, the grand majority would say no. Because we all recognize that those sexist Christian assholes, past and present, don’t speak for all Christians, right? And that making broad generalizations and shaming every Christian because of those assholes and because of history makes no sense, right? Because my Catholic mom isn’t an old racist white guy in Arkansas, and my Anglican professor isn’t a creepy priest who molests little kids. Right?

Tl;dr: Don’t shame Islam as a whole for anti-feminist practices without also shaming Christianity. Because that’s not feminism. It’s islamophobia.

anonymous asked:

"الفقه" اللي انتوا شادين الحيل فيه ترى كله بني ادمين كاتبينه، مب قران منزل من السما، القران هو المرجع الاول و الاخير لحياتنا. نقطه. لا تفسير قران من ناس جاهله و لا شي، القران قابل للتفسير من جميع النواحي، و كل انسان ياخذه مثل ما يبي، فلمى تقولون السعوديه دستورها القران و مدري ايش، السعوديه دستورها a man-made combination of sexist laws that ultimately benefits men and has no sense of equality in it whatsoever.


Handmaid’s Tale discussion question #3: In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’ women are divided into categories, including wife, servant, and handmaid. The handmaids sole purpose in society is to become pregnant and give birth. They are assigned to high-ranking men, their names changed to reflect their ownership. (The main character, assigned to a man named Fred, is known as Offred.) They are not even allowed to then raise these children. 

Author Margaret Atwood describes the circumstances in her book as being “what happens when certain casually held attitudes about women are taken to their logical conclusions.” 

As a society’s values are reflected in their laws, which laws and policies today most concern you about the way our society treats/values women and girls?
Laws to Protect Women Often Do Just the Opposite. The Supreme Court Should Take Note.

In 1937, New York passed a law allowing women to exclude themselves from jury duty to avoid being sequestered in a room with men or forced to hear “sordid evidence.” At least they could serve if they wanted to: In Florida, women weren’t allowed to be on juries until 1949—and even then, women who wished to serve had to register their willingness to undergo “the embarrassment of hearing filthy evidence.” During these same years, many states gave men total legal authority over their wives, forbidding married women from entering contracts or owning property alone. As their wives’ legal protectors, husbands were expected to defend their wives against violence, especially sexual assault, by other men. The flip side of this rule was that husbands were allowed to rape their wives with impunity; in America, marital rape only became a crime in the 1970s and was not banned in every state until 1993.

There is a longstanding tradition of men placing restrictive laws on women in order to “protect” them. Today, there is HB2, Texas’ new abortion laws, “which place onerous burdens on abortion clinics and providers and would shut down all but a handful of clinics in the state.”

Historians have spoken out against these new laws, stating: “even when protection is a genuine goal, not a pretext, and even where an apparently protective regulation in theory might serve to safeguard health, such laws may function in practice to limit women’s freedom and autonomy.” 

Here’s a thought: women are grown adults, capable of protecting themselves? Lawmakers, let’s call these laws what they really are, the removal of women’s rights one by one.