Sexual intimidation has never been about women’s bodies.

Men do not harass, assault or rape women because they are attracted to the female body and can’t control themselves. They can.

Humans use sex as a way of asserting dominance over the other and creating a power imbalance. Men do this to women because they are socialized to believe that, unless they hold power over women, they aren’t men enough. And humans want to be accepted by society and fit into their assigned gender role, because they are scared of being rejected. So men seek to uphold their power over women in any way possible. And an effective way of doing it, is by using sexual harassment, assault or rape.

A recent US study conducted that women in higher positions of power experience more sexual intimidation from their male colleagues and employees than women in lower positions. And that’s because men’s power over those women becomes threatened.

However it’s not only women who experience this, it’s also men of colour and “feminine” men (not entirely sure what they meant with that, but i’m assuming gay men and femme presenting amab people.). They also get sexually intimidated by their STRAIGHT male coworkers. Which is not me invalidating women’s experience. It is me stating that a woman’s body and sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with the harassment they face.

That it why you hear so many women say “I got assaulted wearing a hoody and loose pants” or “I get catcalled no matter what I wear” because it’s NOT about them showing skin EVER.

Women don’t get sexually harassed because of their sex, but because of their gender.

Edit: Wait I actually think I understand what you guys mean. If sexual abuse is not a woman specific form of oppression, then why does it happen to women more than it happens to men from oppressed groups? Which is a valid counterargument that I probably should have considered. Hmm.

So, this summer I’m going to be working for a federal judge, which I’m really excited about!!! BUT it took me awhile to decide I was going to accept the job because apparently there’s a rule for everyone who works for a federal judge that you can’t post anything ‘political’ on social media (obviously tumblr doesn’t count), you can’t wear anything ‘political’, you can’t donate to any political causes where your name would be on a public list, and you can’t go to any protests or marches that might be ‘political’. And the word ‘political’ includes things that absolutely shouldn’t be, like BLM stuff.

So yeah, I’m excited for this opportunity and I think I’ll learn a lot, but this is gonna be so hard, even if it’s only for a few months. I just went though my Instagram and changed my profile picture from the BLM-themed one, deleted by BLM highlight, and archived a couple posts and I feel like a sellout. Like I know I’m not one and this is only temporary anyway but it was a not a good feeling

The contemporary backlash to social justice politics should thus be seen primarily as what it was in the original heyday of Cold War liberalism: as a counter-revolution of comfortable elites against challenges to their authority, using appeals to liberal civic values against the “illiberalism” that animated an earlier anti-Communist alliance. Like the battles between established intellectuals and student protesters in the 1960s, theirs is a self-interested defense of status. Social justice politics ostensibly challenges the dominance of (mostly) older white men in American institutions, a dominance that was successfully defended in the 1960s. (Even now, “anti-woke” writing is the stuff of major book deals, magazine launches, and Substack advances, suggesting that the status quo may be less threatened than many of these writers like to claim.)
The sanctity of life is a core Catholic belief around which moral behavior is to be structured. What it means to be pro-life, therefore, requires careful discernment. For some, like theologian George Weigel, the term pro-life must be exclusively focused on the fight against abortion. Weigel defined pro-life activism as "the cultural marker of serious Catholicism in America," rejecting any movement in the direction of a more generous "seamless garment" approach to life issues. For the 100 Catholic leaders who signed a 2015 statement on immigration reform, however, defending life means recognizing "the image of God in the migrant at the border, in the prisoner on death row, in the pregnant woman, and in the hungry child.” Serious Catholics should reflect on how pro-life activism can possibly be a limited concept. The "seamless garment" stance, conceived by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in 1976, wove together the great social wrongs of that hour: abortion, the death penalty, and the willingness of superpowers to wage nuclear war on a small planet. Little could be gained by rescuing the unborn child, only to annihilate the civilized world. If he were defining the seamless garment today, Bernardin might include racism and gender bias; the plight of migrants, refugees, and displaced people; inequities in health care, education, taxation, and opportunity. Most of all, Bernardin would add the rousing cry of Pope Francis to care for planet earth, our common home. A pro-life activism that acknowledges this seamless garment makes one a very serious Catholic.

Alice Camille

A Facebook friend I've had for some years who is of color and produces ample posts about her own racial experiences, whose background is white conservative Christian (she was adopted into a white family) but embraced wokeness abruptly and brains-falling-out-of-head-full-on circa 2015-2016 (I knew her before then), and about whom I wrote this ranty post I'm not terribly proud of, posted something the other day that I found upsetting on multiple levels and perfectly illustrative of some of my issues with the whole "vulnerability is strength" thing I was writing about the other day.

(Yes, I still go on Facebook somewhat although I've been successful at cutting down since January; with so much less American politics drama nowadays it's been easier both to avoid Facebook and to avoid getting upset by bad posts. And yes, I still run into this person's posts occasionally.)

[The below came out blunt and once again uncharitable in places -- it's about someone else's story which I can think of plenty of ways I might be evaluating unfairly -- but it's too late and I'm way too tired to think of a better way of expressing the points I want to get across.]