intergalactickoala:

eisuverse:

laughterbynight:

mattrenez:

igotaloveshekeepsmewaiting:

melodiesintheair:

jarpadd:

I suggest all females watch this. 

*i suggest all humans watch this.

THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED WATCHING FOR ALL HUMANS

I’m a 17 year old white guy living in middle class America. I’ve never exactly been a supporter of feminism because that kind of thing has never really affected me personally. I don’t notice it and I don’t care about it. But in nine minutes this video has made what is truly a serious problem extremely apparent. Those “why I need feminism” posts or those slut-shaming or rape culture campaigns never convince me of anything. But this video actually did I think.

tl;dr This video kicks ass, just watch it.

A link to the whole documentary

A documentary after Leslie Knope’s heart. But seriously though, very insightful documentary.

Reblogging for the link to the full docco. 

It’s frustrating that this documentary was still problematic. It was not as inclusive is it should/could have been in regards to race. It’s somewhat tokenized. 

irresistible-revolution:

ana2199:

irresistible-revolution:

So I’ve been seeing some of the stuff floating around about Anita Sarkeesian’s series on videogames ‘Women vs. Tropes’ and her decision to disable YouTube comments. Firstly, I fully support her 150% in deciding to disable comments. Despite the protests of ‘we just want discourse!’, most comments…

I first want to disclaim that I am a “white” woman and therefore my opinion may be unwanted or unworthy and that’s completely okay, I know I can never understand racism the way woc do.

As far as I can tell, Anita is trying to avoid talking about racism for two main reasons:

- She’s trying to make this series as safe as possible, that is, she will be keeping the analysis somewhat superficial, the audience is assumed to never have considered much of the media they consumed. After she lays the ground, so to speak, and can establish a group of people that are on the same level with her, she will be able to go into other sides of the issues and make another, more general and more in depth review of games as popculture.

- She knows she is in no place to discuss racism, being white, maybe if she could get a partnership with woc, so that they could speak of racism as they saw fit, more inclusive tropes vs women could be made, but as of now, she already needs to finish a project that’s way more ambitious than her previous projects, so unfortunately it’s gonna have to wait.

I know I sound like I’m just “whitesplaining”, but believe me, I’d like nothing more than an approach to critique that regarded most women.

But….this is what white feminists have been saying for years. “It’s not the right time.” “Gender first, because it’s less complicated.” “When xyz happens, THEN we’ll talk about race.”

So many big name white feminists have made and continue to make similar claims: the suffragists, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, and yet when these women reach wide audiences by engaging with systems of power like whiteness/ class privilege, they don’t turn around and clear the path for WOC rather they continue on with exclusion and marginalizing politics. This is the history of the white feminist movement. I’m tired of being told to wait, because my experience of gender (and because I experience racialized gender doesn’t mean my experience is somehow less about gender than a white woman’s) is too ‘complicated’ for people to understand. Pro Tip: it isn’t. Whenever I talk to people about intersectional feminism, they’re responses are usually much more affirmative than when I talk to people about Valenti-brand white feminism.

This is a big project that Anita’s got funding for, in fact it’s unlikely that a WOC could raise the same amount of funding for a similar project. For this reason I hold her doubly accountable. It’s not WOC’s job to reach out to white women. It’s white women’s job to always consider decentralizing whiteness and to proactively include WOC in their organizations.

biyuti:

agender-queer:

seasofstarlight:

katastrophicallynerdy:

I made a thing…

This is a good thing, thank.

i mean this is cool and all but i don’t like the whole “if you do this, you’re not a feminist then” because it goes along with the “we’re not all like that” idea and i think it’s important to collect your people for their shitty feminism rather than say “well they’re not real feminists”

also, i can’t tell if that one line about being judged for more then whether you have a penis or not is supposed to be including trans women as women or if it’s saying women have vaginas and men have penises. 

To answer the above, given the context: feminism

the penis comment is most definitely transmisogynist

the use of the word ‘female’ in the next slide makes it pretty clear

fuck this slide show

and by extension,

fuck feminists.

fuck feminism

It literally makes me scream that feminists like to pretend that feminism is the only viable means to gender liberation

(hint: it isn’t. and if you think it is, you suffer from a lack of imagination)

thiscuntsays:

oddlyclad:

“You know, Katie Couric is one of my favorite people,” Taylor Swift tells Vanity Fair contributing editor Nancy Jo Sales on the subject of mean girls in general and in response to an incident at this year’s Golden Globes, where Amy Poehler and Tina Fey mocked her highly scrutinized love life. “Because she said to me she had heard a quote that she loved, that said, ‘There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.’”

sigh I like making fun of Taylor Swift as much as the next person but…she does make a really good point here

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler have both created their own TV shows where they play important female leads. Leslie Knope is one of the most inspirational, politically-driven women that comedic TV has seen in a long fucking while. Tina Fey just finished her show after 7 hard earned seasons, never mind the fact that she was pregnant for some of the filming and continued to work hard.

These shows mention feminist concepts such as the male gaze, patriarchy, and inequalities that women experience in the workplace. They make a point of talking about feminism in their shows. This is a remarkable feat just by itself.

These women are not perfect, and Tina Fey remains unaccountable for her racism and whorephobia in her book Bossypants (and sometimes in her show). But they have done more for me as a woman that Taylor Swift ever has and likely ever will.

Taylor Swift has no issues with putting concepts like purity and virginity on a pedestal and uses the virgin/whore dichotomy in her music videos to further points about how SHE is the center of the fucking universe. She is a learned young woman, yet still mumbles on about relationships and boys as if she is in middle school.

I would honestly want to inform Swift that she is not exempt from the catchphrase that she so eagerly applied to Fey and Poehler when they poked fun at her love life, which she has no issues making millions of dollars to write music about, yet gets defensive when people point out specific patterns or hypocrisy within her work.

Yeah all the above^. Especially the bit about Amy and Tina co-signing and participating in problematic (racist/slut-shaming/intellectual elitism/etc.) projects.  

quixxotica:

everythingbutharleyquinn:

hey quixxotica, you wanted to be able to reblog this so you could speak your mind a bit more so here tis. :)

I find it pathetic, sad, and laughable - which is why I felt it necessary to say something. It’s a perfect example of why so many WoC Do Not support White Feminism (or, as the rest of the world knows it: feminism). At this point, I’d bet dollars to donuts, Literally The Entire “developed” World has heard what happened to Quvenzhané Wallis the night of the Academy Awards (the Oscars). But there’s been virtually Crickets from the Feminist community (virtually, I said, not completely) regarding it.

The same feminists who will argue for hours over pink tools and their supportive effect on the patriarchy.

The same feminists who’ve argued for hours/days over “we saw your boobs”

The same feminists who’ve argued for days/hours over the semi-slut shaming of Jennifer Lawrence.

But where are they regarding the Chris brown/Rihanna ‘joke’? Crickets.

Where are they regarding the pedophilist ‘joke’ about Quvenzhané’s age? Crickets.

And where are they about The Onion, the sexualization of 9 year old girls, and how OK everyone seems to be with a little black girl being labeled a cunt in front of the whole world? Crickets.

And it’s always been this way. Feminists, white Feminists, willing to argue until the world ends about “the important things” - unless those things involve people who could really use help… but just so happen to be brown.

So, it’s no surprise white Feminists get upset about being called cunts/cunty, but have said - and will say nothing in defense of quvenzhané. it’s no surprise, but it’s still disappointing..

adventuresofcomicbookghoul:

adventuresofcomicbookghoul:

You know I have to ramble about Sailor Moon.

I actively adore both the anime and the manga and think both have their place in my dorky shrine of excellent inspiring tales about ladies. 

But I think it was correct of Naoko to note when asked about the difference between the manga and the anime that her story is a story by a woman, about women, and for women and that men are involved in the anime so there’s a male influence there. Does this mean 100% bad, and do I think she was trying to say it’s terrible? No. But I do think it’s a thing to consider, especially in regards to the male gaze that definitely could be present in the anime. Both the anime and the manga had like, sexualized content, but the content in the anime is seen through a different lens because this is men doing it. And Takuechi herself allegedly was critical of the male gaze sometimes (like, on one hand she thought the transformations were pretty and on the other hand was a little squicked out is pretty clear)

Let’s look at the pos and neg here in major changes

1. Usagi and Mamoru.  Naoko has straight up said she crafted Mamoru to be her ideal dude, and that’s reflected in how she made him basically the most supportive boyfriend in the world who admits pretty immediately when he screws up and is basically constantly open about how much he completely adores Usagi and thinks she’s the most kickass girl in the universe 24/7. Seriously, once an arc you have Mamoru going “THANKS FOR SAVING MY LIFE USAGI UR MY INVINCIBLE HERO” and Usagi being like “NO PROB BB I’LL ALWAYS PROTECT YOU”. Naoko worked really, really hard on presenting a positive relationship to girls so they could see “yeah, it is possible for a guy to really respect you, don’t settle for less.”Really, manga Mamoru is probably one of the most healthy, feminist boyfriends in all of shoujo. There’s also the fact the manga flat out said Mamoru was going to take over the rearing of Chibiusa so Usagi could do what she wanted, and also presented their mutual miscommunications and drama and jealousy as real problems they had to work through together by communicating.

Mamoru’s main problem in the manga is he actually is this kid with really low self esteem who feels he lucked out way too much by landing with Usagi and he *burdens* her, and Usagi helps him work through that- in the anime, it could be kind of the opposite, with Usagi demonstrating really low self esteem in regards to Mamoru at times and feeling she’s not good enough, even being told by others she better shape up or she’ll lose him. Kinda not as subversive.

 I think the animators don’t really have Naoko’s idea of what the ideal boyfriend is, so they had a certain idea of how boys and girls should interact, that guys need to be stoic and tough and all that shit, and so we got shit like the R break-up and paternalism and Mamoru swooping into save the day rather than his manga role of being like “hey sailor moon im yer backup i’ll give you some of my power i’d die if it meant you could fight go get em gurl”. and stuff. On the other hand, the fact they were not as interested in presenting the relationship meant that the anime tended to focus on the friendships and side characters more than the manga did and Mamoru was less prominent and also a lot more in the mold of being this domestic guy who is there to support Usagi in later seasons.

However, I do feel even in later seasons it didn’t reach that height of equality. And it’s reflected in small things like, in the manga when Mamoru left he basically babbled to Usagi that he’d miss her so much and he’d write to her, while in the anime Mamoru was all “I’LL BE REALLY BUSY” and Usagi was the one being like “I’LL WRITE TO YOU THO”. The anime was clearly kinda uncomfortable with having a guy be so openly devoted, dependent and emotional in that situation.

It’s not that Mamoru isn’t a subversive shoujo love interest in the anime who clearly totally believes in Usagi- it’s just that he’s a lot moreso in the manga, and that actually makes the relationship both more feminist and more real. On the other hand, as I said, it’s kind of nice that the anime doesn’t focus on him as much.

2. Sex- Usagi sort of subtly is interested in sex with Mamoru in the anime and propositions him for it, and it goes over his head. In the manga, she similarly is the one who’s more aggressive and interested in sex, and Mamoru like…well, he responds. They have sex in the manga, or get close to having sex a lot.

Read More

whoa this is getting some reblogs! I think the recent spate is because fandf reblogged it. Thanks :)

Part 2

Part 1

hamburgerjack:

karnythia:

zuky:

abbyjean:

ilykadamen:zuky:

If you’re familiar with these images, you probably never wanted to see them again. But I’m looking at them anew because I’ve been looking at other European representations of the white encounter with aboriginal peoples. I believe this multi-generational culturally-orienting imagery remains lodged in most white people’s brain stems. They’re mostly unconscious of it because its effects are felt at the level of pre-intellectual cognition, mostly manifesting as feelings about things — feelings of cleanliness and dirtiness, feelings of attraction and disgust, feelings of good and bad — which are retroactively justified with deracialized logic. That’s why all of the white folks associated with the imagery above didn’t even notice it. Author, editors, blogger friends who plugged the book, all claimed to not notice these pictures. “I don’t look at pictures!” some insultingly claimed. I never believed a word of that. They didn’t notice because colonial racism is as natural and invisible to most white folks as air.

I recently posted this iconic 16th century engraving depicting Vespucci discovering America. Indigenous people are naked and roasting human flesh. We see wild animals roaming. And of course we see Vespucci, literally being celebrated as rapist of the new world. Turning to the modern comic strip posted above, once again we see wild animals roaming. We see maniacal savages apparently on the verge of roasting…a white colonizer! That’s the twist: the white man is actually being prevented from doing his thing in this hostile environment which must be colonized (what else could white people possibly be doing in this context). He’s supposed to be the rapist, not dinner. So a white woman comes to his defense, crushing the natives and thus re-enabling the rape of the native world, which is the proper order of things. Moreover, the white woman’s revealed body replaces the sexualized indigenous woman in the engraving. Yes, hollow apologies were eventually issued concerning these pictures, but none indicated any actual grasp of the cultural meanings I’ve just outlined. Even with this imagery removed from future printings of the book, it remains irrevocably embedded within the book’s very title and text, because it’s lodged in the brain stems of those who produced the work and those who will most likely enjoy it.

Self reblog because this is the face of white feminism which keeps coming up.

OMFG I remember these pics & the way they were defended. And all the talk of Marcotte needing a safe space when the critiques were happening.

svetlana-del-rey:

Feminism is about women’s liberation

Men do not factor into this equation because men literally run this world

“equality” is just another placatory statement we’re supposed to offer up to make men think we’re nice feminists and not gross man-hating dykes

And “equality” is such an absurd definition when we are so fucking far from it and will probably never achieve it in this life time, if ever

Can men be oppressed? Of course, hence intersectionality. Can they be oppressed for being men, and should I therefore qualify every statement about my feminism with how I want equal rights for men too? lol no

y’all have way more than your fair share already, have the good grace to shut up about it

[TRIGGER WARNING: Rape/Stalking]

desliz:

ghostferry:

friendlyangryfeminist:

everythingbutharleyquinn:

please read the link “snowdrop exposed” with caution. It is grotesque and chilling and horrible. He did not actually rape and murder the woman he planned to, but he describes how he planned to (and actually has the gall to characterise himself as a victim) and it’s very upsetting and may be triggering to some. 

He claims he told his story to help other men from becoming monsters, like he “almost” became.

Dude, I’d say you became a monster the second you actually planned to commit rape and murder and assembled a fucking kit with which to do so.

That he can be accepted by the feminist community now is also very upsetting.

Though the moniker of ‘femanist’ indicates immediately he’s a hopeless narcissist. 

svetlana-del-rey:

As requested, “snowdrop exposed”

desliz:

fuckyeahkinkshaming:

Several people have requested that I kink-shame the ever-living fuck out of “SnowDrop Explodes”  who continues to blog and continues to be internet friends with feminist bloggers,  even after it became widely known that he posted, in explicit detail,  about the time he stalked a woman with the intent to rape and murder her.

While I would prefer this blog to be mostly about people’s defensive attitude towards their harmless pee fetishes or their insistence that having lots of heterosexual sex is queer by speaking in a British accent.  Because that shit is funny.

And snowdropexplodes is not funny.  The idea that someone who stalked a woman with the intent to murder her,  then defends his right to consume violent pornography (I’m cutting the exact description of the porn, but you can read at the link) because he says it “saved her life” by fullfilling his desire to rape and murder “safely” is still a feminist blogger is fucked up. 

It’s possible that extreme porn saves lives, by providing a safe and non-destructive outlet for the fantasies and urges of people like me. The only time those fantasies become dangerous (as they did in my case) is when the person having them is suffering from mental health problems and feels isolated (for example, because of their deviant sexuality!)

And whatever one’s views on kink and porn in general,  that a person like this devotes a great deal of time and energy to attacking feminist critrics of bdsm and porn is also fucked up. 

So yeah, fuck that guy.  I hope he continues to feel shame. 

Isn’t it remarkable how loathsome woman-hating wastes of carbon like this can become feminist heroes as long as they learn how to justify their existence with sex-positive bullshit? Not only must women fell obligated to declare how much they love sex and appealing to the male gaze before they can call themselves feminists, we must grovel around pieces of shit like this because they help reify the lie that, if we’re good girls who don’t complain about things that make us uncomfortable, we’ll be safe from the men who would stalk and rape and murder us.

This made me nauseous. 

what the ever loving fuck

honestly there are some people that i would feel absolutely no guilt over beating the shit out of with a baseball bat and this guy is one of them.

reblogging so people can be fully informed about him and what his apologists are defending.

so-treu:

so on June 28th it is announced that Valenti receives a 48k fellowship from Harvard to, in her own words, “research and develop a plan for a national think tank grounded in digital feminism and its communities.”

and then on June 29 she makes this post on The Nation. titled “The Future of Feminist Activism: Live Chat with Jessica Valenti, Anna Holmes and Aimee Thorne-Thomsen.”

On Thursday July 5,at 2 pm EST, Nation readers are invited to participate in a live chat on the future of feminist activism with Feministing.com co-founder and Nation blogger Jessica Valenti. Jessica will be joined by writer and editor Anna Holmes, the founding editor of Jezebel.com; and reproductive justice activist Aimee Thorne-Thomsen, vice president for strategic partnership at Advocates for Youth and former executive director of the Pro-Choice Public Education Project.

Of course, the “future of feminist activism” is a broad topic that encompasses countless important questions. To narrow things down a bit, we’re asking you—our readers—to get us started with suggestions for issues and questions you’d like to see discussed. Post your thoughts in the comment section below and be sure to join us on Thursday, July 5, at 2 pm for a lively conversation!

………

so basically you want us to do your work for you.

and why would someone who is sooooo at the forefront of modern digital internetz feminism(TM) need to do that? what does that say how plugged in (OR NOT) you are to what the fuck is going on in women’s lives who are not like you?

why weren’t those subject areas and coalitions and relationships in placebeforeshe got the 48 thou? before The Nation and Rupert Murdoch gigs? how aren’t these conversations already happening where she is?

im just sayin, if *I* got 48k and one year to do some shit i wouldn’t need to have a “chat” to drum up ideas……..i would just get at my people.

which is the point. people. who are you accountable to? who are you serving? who the fuck needs a feminist think tank?

oppressedbrowngirlsdoingthings:

deviantdiya:

danceswithfaeriesunderthemooon:

youarenotyou:

feministorwomanist:

Q: Sorry if you already answered this, but I came across your other channel and just watched the video where you say Mormonism is “probably one of the most sexist [religions] that I’ve come across, beside Islam.” Since you are white and have never been Muslim, could you issue an apology, or update the video with an apology in the description? I am an atheist too, but there is horrible sexism in many religions, and in secular culture as well. It’s not right to single out Islam. It’s Islamophobic.

A: You’re right, it’s not right to single out Islam. Many religions and cultures are extremely sexist and I despise them all equally. This wasn’t the intent of my statement and I apologize if it came off that way.

The video (which is kinda old and came before I learned how to be fully “PC”) is about my experience, and in my life, Islam has perpetuated more gendered violence and sexism toward the women in my life and family than mormonism ever did. Both these religions have wounded me and my loved ones deeply, much of which was on the basis of sex and gender. Just writing about this makes my heart sink. No amount of screaming “Islamophobia” will change that, and it’s actually a wonderful example of how childish and ignorant religion makes people out to be. People get so wound up in defending anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-human, piece of trash organizations that they can’t hear criticism for what it is: a human experience that is real, that is valid, that is unjust.

Yes I am white and no I am not Muslim nor have I ever been. There are certain experiences I can never speak about, such as actually being Muslim or being a person of color. I can, however, speak about my own, and to argue that I must have dark skin or have been a practicing Muslim in order for me to do so is more of the same oppressive bullshit.

I grew up in a multicultural family. My dad’s side of the family immigrated from Iran 20 years ago. My dad himself immigrated to America when he was 16. My family is Muslim on my dad’s side and Mormon on my mother’s (although my dad eventually converted to mormonism). I grew up in a climate where these two religions dominated my life in a really painful way.

I don’t owe ANYONE explanations of why I feel the way I do. I don’t need to rehash things that have hurt me and that I’ve moved on from. My feelings and experiences are perfectly valid on their own. If you want to call it “Islamophobia”, I’ll call you ignorant. This isn’t about quantifying pain, this is about my own experience with that pain. Calling that “Islamophobia” undermines what Islamophobia really is and how it operates. I fucking hate organized religion, including Islam, and all the pouting in the world won’t change that.

so just because you’ve seen a specific religion harm people in your life all of a sudden means “this is one of the most sexist religions out there that i’ve come across” is a legitimate statement to make? and then she calls the people who’ve been saying she’s being islamophobic childish. yes because you totally explained all of your experiences with islam before making that video, so HOW DARE WE call you islamophobic? RELIGION MAKES PPL CHILDISH GUYS FUCK RELIGION is NOT a real critique of anything.

“to argue that I must have dark skin or have been a practicing Muslim in order for me to do so is more of the same oppressive bullshit.” OH LOOK, we’re oppressing her by saying that she shouldn’t speak about islam if she’s not a muslim herself! oh no! you know what? laci green should be able to speak on ANYTHING EVER. we can’t oppress her ability to talk about experiences that aren’t hers! and having muslim family TOTALLY ALLOWS her to speak on islam as an authority!

and then she tells us that we don’t know what islamophobia is. fuck you laci green fuck you fuck you fuck you.

i bolded my favorite parts

this is some racist white privilege denying shit right here

ugh.

and this is why i don’t watch her videos anymore

fuck western feminism.

les-baleines:

^^this.

I am also getting the impression that, while they expected a movie with a female protagonist, a lot of the reviewers didn’t actually expect a female-centered movie in the way Brave turned out to be - not just focused on a woman, but focused on a particularly female relationship.  The whole movie is about women and their emotions and the delicate politics of mothers and daughters, and I think quite a few reviewers expected another adventure film, just with a genderswap.  Not to say that that sort of movie isn’t important and needed - we need to see girls having the sorts of adventures that Remy and Carl and all of Pixar’s other male characters have - but at the same time the fact that Pixar made a great movie which is really about a specifically female experience gives me hope.  They have proven that they can write women who are whole people and have complicated experiences and relationships and inner lives, and that they can do this with multiple types of women, and that they can put several female characters in a story without resorting to cliches of bitchy infighting or shallow friendship or stupid drama over men.

Of course, now that Pixar’s proven that they’re capable of all this, I expect to see a lot more central female characters from them in the next several years.  Brave is wonderful, but it’s not a step forward if they immediately take two steps back and make more male buddy movies.

^

iwish-morethanthemoon:

thewayitscalling-me-tangled:

star-in-the-darkness:

ancientrelic:

sageofspiritairaandfairymeike:

I FUCKING HATE FUCKING CRITICS.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS.