#Most of feminism is focused on systemic oppression rather than just discrimination- and the systemic stuff is largely rooted in sexism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wangliangying · 4 months

Text

Reading

1.Blais, M. and Dupuis-Déri, F. (2012) ‘Masculinism and the Antifeminist Countermovement’, Social movement studies, 11(1), pp. 21–39.

This book is about the impact of masculinity on feminism and the dichotomy between the sexes. This book talks about the relationship between gender issues and social issues in a very profound way.

It made me start to think about the fact that many girls in developed countries have their proper gender consciousness. It also says that men in developed areas are afraid that women will take their place in society and become masculinized. However, in the poor and backward areas, women feel that they are born to be paid by men. I think that the real need for feminist thinking is in the poorer areas, whereas in the developed areas there's a greater need for gender parity, rather than antagonistic relationships.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/14742837.2012.640532

2.Chatzipanagiotidou, E. and Murphy, F. (2021) ‘'Devious silence': Refugee art, memory activism, and the unspeakability of loss among Syrians in Turkey’, History and anthropology, 32(4), pp. 462–480.

This article is about the current state of artists from Turkey Syria, and countries at war. They are refugee artists. They want to let the outside world know more about refugees through their artwork.

The article mentions that many people think this kind of refugee artwork is free of charge and belongs to public welfare activities. However, refugee art and the danger of war need to be understood by the public, and the better value of art is not to tell people that the world is beautiful, but to reveal the bad side of it. It's appropriate to charge money so that artists can have the money to make better art.

3.Dawson, L. (2014) ‘The Other: gender, sexuality and ethnicity in European cinema and beyond’, Studies in European cinema, 11(3), pp. 151–154.

This article tells that sex began without a distinction between male and female. The need for a social system differentiated the positions of males and females. This leads to women often being oppressed in relationships.

This article makes an interesting point, the distinction between female and male is just as much a social necessity as the above point. I've also been thinking about how people don't want to live longer just because they want to and because society believes that human longevity increases the labour force in society. Just like we do with our gender, men aren't born proud of their strength, and women aren't born thinking that being attentive and considerate makes them good girls.

All the distinctions we make about sex are essentially a necessity of societal development, not a point of difference between males and females at birth.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/17411548.2014.972672

4.Ezzedeen, S.R. (2013) ‘The portrayal of professional and managerial women in North American films. Good news or bad news for your executive pipeline?’, Organizational dynamics, 42(4), pp. 248–256.

This article focuses on describing, in the modern film industry, most depictions of professional women always have women discussing love, getting married and having children. Even superhero films with female protagonists have a primary audience of men. However, the audience for professional films about women's success is mostly women. That's why the book mentions that women will watch both male and female-oriented films, yet men only watch male-oriented films.

Although the article points out that this is discrimination against women by men in today's society. I believe that discrimination is part of the reason, and more because in the mainstream of society, men are treated favourably and women aspire to be men. However, in female-orientated professional works, men can feel that what they can easily get is portrayed as so difficult by women, and it's more about an inability to empathise.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.07.002

5.He, Y. (2019) ‘Boris Groys and the total art of Stalinism’, Thesis eleven, 152(1), pp. 38–51.

This article writes about the reasons for the relatively late development of art in the Soviet Union and the relationship between art and politics. The USSR was a socialist country like China, where art became a tool of the political system and not art.

Modern socialist countries can indeed be extremely strict in their scrutiny of art, which is detrimental to the innovation and development of art. But I believe that it is not only socialist countries that set up art as a part of politics, but capitalism as well. It relies on rich art and colourful life to attract people to emigrate in large numbers.

We all live in a world dominated by politics, and I don't think our art has ever been truly free.

6.Maguire, C. (2017) ‘Learning With Refugees: Arts and Human Rights Across Real and Imagined Borders’, Art education (Reston), 70(4), pp. 51–55.

This article is about how art is an expression of human rights, and how it can be an aggravating factor for people with disabilities, and refugees …. for social, cultural and artistic identities.

One interesting point in this article is that art plays a central role in facilitating personal and social transformation, meaning that art can help others to better integrate into society. By bringing art to a refugee area, art becomes a comfort food for the refugees and makes them forget about their injuries. This is more about the relationship between art and human rights. A lot of artists think about caring about the world, and they want to make people care about the world as well through art.

https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/learning-with-refugees-arts-human-rights-across/docview/1933262169/se-2?accountid=14660

7.Nishi, N.W., Matias, C.E. and Montoya, R. (2015) ‘Exposing the white avatar: projections, justifications, and the ever-evolving American racism’, Social identities, 21(5), pp. 459–473.

This article is about how, in a system that heavily promotes racial equality, the representation of blacks by whites in various media productions has instead exacerbated the racial tensions between blacks and whites. Just for example, classic American films like to write about whites as saviour figures and blacks as servants who follow them. Even awards are given to blacks for playing good mothers and servants in films. In games, they also like to portray that white people wear hoods to make their faces black and do what black people do as if they give black people understanding and respect.

Through this article, I have come to believe that there is no system of equality or respect in the world at all, that everyone's lives are completely different, and that there is still a long way to go to achieve equality in the breed.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/13504630.2015.1093470

8.Pregitzer, L. (2022) ‘Women Artists — Still Invisible Today? A Critical Approach to Strategies of Making Women Artists Visible’, On_Culture (Online), 13.

This article primarily discusses the decreasing presence of works by female artists in contemporary society's art exhibitions. It reflects the lack of representation and recognition of women in the artist community, emphasizing the need for more attention to address this issue.

There's an interesting perspective in the article that discusses in the context of a predominantly male artist community, many works by female artists are often perceived through a male perspective. This led me to contemplate the prevalence of female nudity in contemporary art exhibitions, where the number of artworks featuring female nudes often exceeds those depicting male nudes. This may indeed be influenced, in part, by the male gaze in the art world today.

Therefore, this article profoundly illustrates the societal phenomenon of inadequate status for women.

https://doi.org/10.22029/oc.2022.1279

9.Saha, A. and Lente, S. van (2022) ‘Diversity, media and racial capitalism: a case study on publishing’, Ethnic and racial studies, 45(16), pp. 216–236.

This book is about, the ambivalence of racial capitalism. On one hand, they want to make their audience predominantly white through the media, while on the other hand, they are promoting ethnic republicanism equality and tolerance. But this preaching of racial equality becomes a tool to make money.

This article got me thinking about how national policies for diverse cultures are often racially peaceful and inclusive. But where politics goes is often to become a tool for profit. As this article mentions, a writer writing books about racial equality can make a lot of money. But I think this is a bad phenomenon. The nature of art is to warn people and make them see more of the differences in the world, not to continue to write about what has already been seen to increase the sense of identity.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/01419870.2022.2032250

10.Wexler, A. (2018) ‘BLACKLIVESMATTER: Access and Equity in the Arts and Education’, Art education (Reston), 71(1), pp. 20–23.

This paper discusses the fact that even though some schools are willing to waive tuition fees to facilitate access to arts education for non-white students, non-whites still face significant barriers to the arts.

The article mentions that the arts are not suitable for youth of colour to appreciate or to pursue as a future career. This phenomenon does exist. I couldn't agree more with the author that the main cause of this phenomenon, besides poverty, is the lack of regional development. Similarly, the article describes a black man taking his father to an art gallery and repeatedly explaining to him the image of a naked woman and saying "That's not me".

From this article, I felt that many artists have their ideas about protecting the planet and caring for refugees. But art cannot warn the whole world. Art belongs only to those whose ideas resonate.

0 notes

leebird-simmer · 2 years

Text

Russian Fairy Tales Review: Feminism(s) pt. 1

Basic Ideas:

- A political stance and a mode of critique

- Challenges essentialism, the idea that men are naturally & essentially “masculine” and that women are naturally and essentially “feminine”

- Aims to uncover, analyze, and overturn gendered systems of social hierarchy (the patriarchy)

- Exposes the ways in which male power is realized and maintained in economic & cultural institutions

- Reveals the biases in other supposedly objective cultural practices and objects

Phases of (white, American) Feminism:

- First Wave (late 19th-early 20th century), principally concerned with political rights such as suffrage (the right to vote)

- Second Wave (1960s-1980s) imagined the personal/cultural as being linked with the political; focused on issues of discrimination and social inequalities; principally revolved around how family roles isolate and limit women.

- Third Wave (1990s-present?) corrects second-wave feminism’s emphasis on the plight of white upper- and middle-class w omen; instead favors intersectionality (the idea that discrimination against women is connected to other forms of discrimination).

Essentialism

- The idea that “masculine” and “feminine” are essential traits inextricably linked to the sexes (argument from nature).

- Essentialism is used as a justification for systemic oppression (i.e. patriarchy). It’s really about power.

- Feminism wants to examine and critique this claim by re-framing it as a question of nurture.

Some Essentialist Binaries

Marcia Lieberman’s Thesis: The most popular fairy tales acculturate boys and girls to accept traditional, patriarchy-approved social roles in such a way that fairy-tale collections essentially become training manuals about how to behave in a patriarchal system.

Editors of popular fairy-tale collections were selective, and they chose to compile fairy tales that highlighted and encouraged traditional behavioral patterns. According to Lieberman, fairy tales teach that…

- A woman’s life is a beauty contest.

- The suffering of women is glamorous.

- Powerful women are generally evil.

- Marriage is the goal of the woman’s life.

Life is a Beauty Contest

What is the “contest” like for girls?

- Being beautiful = getting picked = getting rich

- You don’t need to do anything to get picked, just look good.

- Beautiful women are meek and good-tempered.

- Ugly women are ill-tempered, ambitious, and conniving.

The lesson for girls: You will be rewarded for being passive, meek, and sweet, but if you are ambitious and assertive, then you will be considered ugly and no one will love you.

What is the “contest” like for boys?

- Boys get to solve riddles, find magical objects, and kill dragons. They are the heroes in life’s narrative, and they get to have all the fun.

- Boys have agency: they are subjects. Girls lack agency: they are objects. Boys are rewarded for their efforts with wives.

Women’s Suffering is Glamorous

Think about Snow White or Sleeping Beauty: they are in catatonic states (suffering) but are arrayed in beautiful finery within crystal, bejeweled caskets (glamour).

Women in distress are portrayed as interesting, and thus passivity leads to rewards.

The lesson for girls: Enjoy your suffering; revel in it! Or at least get used to it, because a woman’s role under patriarchy is to suffer, so she needs to be conditioned to accept that suffering.

Powerful Women are Generally Evil

For a girl trained by popular fairy tales, to be powerful is to be ugly and evil, to be loathed and reviled rather than to be desired and chosen.

The lesson for girls: Don’t be ambitious, active, or strong-willed. The world will reject you. Avoid the pursuit of power if you want to be a “real” woman.

Powerful women who are *not* evil, such as fairy godmothers, are old, asexual, and not quite human. They are seldom present during the narrative’s action. Girls are not encouraged to view the fairy godmother as an aspirational figure; they are supposed to identify with the princess!

Marriage is the Goal of the Woman’s Life

Marriage dominates the most popular tales, and it leads to wealth and social status.

Tales rarely portray what happens after marriage: the work, the toil, the routines. Instead, they present a world of eternal courtship in which the beautiful, passive woman is always desired and the center of attention.

The lesson for girls: Focus on getting married; don’t worry too much about the marriage itself.

#Russian Fairy Tales #feminism #study note #my blog #gender binaries #gender essentialism #patriarchy

1 note · View note

bravestage-blog · 6 years

Text

The Dangers of Binary Identity Structures in the LGBTQ+ Community

Note: At the end of the post, I have included a glossary of terms which explain some of the identities that I reference.

The LGBTQ+ community is a complex group of individuals with a variety of different identities, experiences, and opinions. While mainstream media and individuals outside of the community often like to talk about queer experience as a monolithic entity, this practice fails to acknowledge both the diversity and hierarchical systems which exist specifically within this community. Intersectionality is a crucial thing to consider when examining the experiences of people, whether they are members of the LGBTQ+ community or not. The overlap of race, class, ability status, sexuality, and more all tie in to how we, as human beings, experience life. While our societal issues of racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, and more are commonly associated with conservative values, they are by no means absent from the LGBTQ+ community. While these are complex, multi-faceted issues, they are crucial to understand because they develop structures of power and oppression within our world. Different societies have different norms and acceptable behaviors put forth by groups in power. Today, I would like to discuss a norm which permeates the general perspective of identity: the binary.

The insistence on binary systems, both generally in our country and more specifically within the queer community, is both problematic and diminishing to individuals with more fluid identities. This post will delve into binary structures and attitudes within the LGBTQ+ community which impact the experience of bisexual, pansexual, and queer sexualities, as well as trans//non-binary gender identities. My argument ultimately discourages binary-only thinking. It examines the dangers of binary norms which further marginalize and alienate people who exist along a spectrum, rather than at the ends of it. Such issues remain prevalent even within a community that is supposed to protect and validate queer identity. I believe that commitment to binary systems and rejection of fluid identity ultimately hinders our ability to grow, open our minds, and understand one another. It is counterproductive and illogical to put people into boxes, especially within the already marginalized LGBTQ+ community.

When I speak of the hierarchies which exist within the queer community, I refer primarily to the influence possessed by white, cisgender* gays and lesbians. There are plenty of queer individuals who exist within a binary themselves, and that is their truth. But that reality does not apply to other LGBTQ+ individuals, and should not be forced upon them. The experiences of bisexuals within the queer community is perhaps the most frequently discussed example. Their experience can best be summarized from Youtube channel “Bisexual Real Talk.” Alex Anders makes the important point that “Every time we tell young people who are bisexual to go and search the LGBT community, we are creating certain expectations in their mind. And what do you think does more damage: when a person who knows they are going to be discriminated in a certain group and then gets discriminated in that group, or when a person is told that they will be able to find solace in a group and they lower their guard and then they’re discriminated against?” This statement perfectly frames an ongoing issue within the queer community.

A variety of studies have been conducted surrounding biphobia in LGBTQ+ spaces. As a bit of explanation: “biphobia seeks to undermine the legitimacy of bisexual identities and comes in many forms: jokes, stereotypes, non-inclusive language and even abuse. The fear of being dismissed as “too gay” or “too straight” often makes it hard to be open” (HRC). In a study conducted by Corey E. Flanders at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, “Many of the participants reported not only encountering professionals who were clueless about bisexuality, but also feeling unwanted at Pride events just for being bisexual. The results indicated “young bisexual women perceive monosexism and biphobia as significant challenges to their mental health at the institutional, community, interpersonal and intrapersonal level” (Flanders). Additionally, a study by Tangela S. Roberts and Sharon G. Horne of the University of Massachusetts, and William T. Hoyt of the University of Wisconsin surveyed 745 bisexuals of various ages, genders, and ethnicities to share their stories of experiencing biphobia. The study found that “although the bisexuals surveyed experienced more biphobia from straight people, they also experienced an alarming amount of biphobia from lesbians and gays” (Roberts). A common argument that people, queer and otherwise, like to make about bisexual individuals is that they are confused. There is an idea surrounding bisexuality that women just experimenting or men are gay but afraid to fully commit. While this mentality is shifting, it is still undeniably present among queer and straight people alike. Hurtful terminology within the LGBTQ+ community has even developed surrounding the bisexual identity. Pride.com created a list of terms/phrases used by gays and lesbians against bisexuals. Examples include “Hasbian,” and “bi now, gay later.” Terms like this suggest that bisexuality is a transitional phase which people use to ease themselves into the queer community before assuming a “real” identity, which falls within the binary of either gay or straight. So, why does this matter so much? According to the Bisexual Resource Center, approximately 40 percent of bisexual people have considered or attempted suicide, compared to just over a quarter of gay men and lesbians. Additionally, according to The Williams Institute, “bisexual-identified people make up approximately half of the total population of the LGBTQ community — but only 28 percent of bisexual people report being out to those closest to them.” This represents a clear, pressing issue on the dangers of binary identity structures and biphobia.Biphobia is closely related to “monosexism,” which is “a belief that monosexuality (either exclusive heterosexuality and/or homosexuality) is superior to or more legitimate than a bisexual or other non-monosexual orientation” (Everyday Feminism). Monosexism also invalidates pansexual* and other queer sexualities that are not as binary as gay or straight. While binary sexuality research has primarily focused on bisexuals, there is also the experience of transgender* and non-binary* individuals to consider.

Discussions of transgender identity have been a more prominent topic of conversation in the United States over the last couple of years. The ongoing debate argues whether or not there are more than two genders. Many people, within and outside of the LGBTQ+ community, believe that the body that we are born into dictates our gender and how we are supposed to act/present ourselves. This is again representative of binary identity modeling. Transgender and non-binary identities exist contrary to this mindset. Transphobia is a huge problem in the LGBTQ+ community, despite the T representing transgender people. Pride, a well-known celebration for the queer community, is meant to commemorate the transgender-led Stonewall Riots back in the 1960s. However, transgender people are often forgotten in these celebrations today. Trans and non-binary individuals do not receive nearly as much support or recognition within the LGBTQ+ community. As a result, such individuals are struggling at alarming rates. According to the New York Times, a recent survey of more than six thousand self-identified transgender people showed that 41 percent have attempted suicide, a staggering twenty-six times the rate of the general population. There is conversation within the queer community that trans and non-binary people are “hurting the movement.” These people fail to acknowledge the work done by courageous trans women like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, work that has greatly benefited the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.

The common understanding of gender as a binary system is not one that includes all people. It is also one that leads to deeply rooted problems for queer and straight individuals alike. Strict adherence to a gender binary and, subsequently, gender roles, can perpetuate issues of misogyny, hypermasculinity, domestic violence, homophobia, transphobia, and more.Identifying within the binary is not the problem. The problem is believing solely in the binary. It is the belief that things must only be one way or the other which complicates and oppresses individuals in many ways. Existing in the binary model may work for many of us, but forcing it onto other people is neither fair nor beneficial. Humans are not meant to be diminished into narrow categories with little room for expansion or exploration. We should not be limited by binaries, especially surrounding gender or sexuality.

If the LGBTQ+ community really wants to advocate for acceptance, equality, and human rights, then it needs to extend it’s fight to all of the individuals who exist within the community. This means acknowledging non-binary sexualities and gender identities, acknowledging race, and, ultimately, acknowledging the intersectional nature of human existence. Empathy and openmindedness are crucial to the fight which the queer community continues to advocate for. Feeling a sense of community with those who are similar to you is crucial for support, happiness, and general wellbeing. For this reason, my “Spread the Word” project will delve further into the queer community and how a hierarchy exists even within this marginalized group. Ultimately, I hope that people who get to view parts of this project can identify with or learn something new from the experiences I highlight and examine. To fellow LGBTQ+ individuals: if we cannot look out for each other, how can we expect people outside our community to look out for us? We must fix the problems within our own spaces and find unity if we truly hope for change in our world. Erasing the binary-only mentality is a great way to begin such reforms.

Vocabulary:

Cisgender: identifying with the anatomical sex that you were assigned at birth (a physical male identifying as a man, a physical female identifying as a woman)

Transgender: identifying with a gender that does not align with your anatomical sex at birth (someone who is assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman, someone who is assigned female at birth who identifies as a man)

Genderqueer or non-binary: people who do not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identify with neither, both, or a combination of masculinity and femininity

Bisexual: sexual attraction towards two or more genders (attracted most commonly to cisgender men and cisgender women)

Pansexual: sexual attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity

Queer: a reclaimed term used by LGBTQ+ individuals to describe themselves (in terms of sexuality and/or gender identity)

#mine #writing

1 note · View note

viscommolly · 4 years

Text

Editing the ‘feminist icons’

Taking information form a selection of sources online (links below), I have rewritten the information to be put on the menu, at this point some may not be used but I wanted to have a ‘bank’ of info incase I needed more, or less, I am also thinking this information may need further editing; Info found at these links:

https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/38628_7.pdf https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/10-game-changing-feminist-thinkers/ https://squaderno.altervista.org/2018/01/15/virginia-woolf-the-pioneer-of-feminism/ https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/g4201/famous-feminists-throughout-history/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/suffragette/10_famous_feminists/

Betty Friedan (1921–2006) Sagepub/ Culture Trip// Bazaar

Friedan presents the idea that women suffered under a pervasive system of delusions and false values under which they were urged to find personal fulfilment, even identity, vicariously through the husbands and children to whom they were expected cheerfully to devote their lives.

Betty Friedan (1921–2006) 2nd Wave (edited) Presented the idea that women suffered a system of delusions and false values under which they were urged to find personal fulfilment through husbands and children who they were expected to devote their lives.

Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) Sagepub/Culture Trip/the telegraph/ Bazaar

Beauvoir argued that women have been defined by men and that if they attempt to break with this, they risk alienating themselves. She suggested that women are defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; women are seen as the inessential to the man.

Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) 2nd Wave (edited) Beauvoir argued that women have been defined by men and that if they attempt to break with this, they risk alienating themselves

bell hooks (1952) Culture Trip/ the telegraph/ Bazaar

Gloria Jean Watkins is primarily known as bell hooks, she is a postmodern feminist thinker and writer whose work focuses on issues of capitalism, race, and gender. hooks writing highlights the ways these three factors interact, and she asserts that they are driving forces of oppression within society. She also discusses the ways that mainstream feminism lacks diversity, a critique that has ultimately caused a new wave of feminism to take form.

bell hooks (1952) 2nd Wave (edited) Feminist thinker and writer whose work focuses on issues of capitalism, race, and gender, highlights the ways these three factors interact, asserting that they are driving forces of oppression within society.

Anne Fausto-Sterling (1944) Culture Trip/

Anne Fausto-Sterling is a biologist and geneticist that challenged our notions of biological sex. Her research demonstrates that there are actually five biological sexes, rather than two. When intersex babies are born, doctors assign the baby a gender based on their own socially formed judgments about what the baby’s genitals seem to be. From here, she goes on to explain that babies learn gender and behavior after being born. Therefore, gender is not actually a biological phenomenon but a social one.

Anne Fausto-Sterling (1944) (edited) Fausto-Sterling suggests gender is not a biological phenomenon but a social one. explaining that babies learn gender and behaviour after being born and that doctors assign the baby a gender based on their own socially formed judgments about what the baby’s genitals seem to be.

Kimberlé Crenshaw (1959) 3rd Culture Trip/

Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality,’. Feminism is a movement that has long been dominated voices and perspectives of educated white women. Intersectionality refers to the idea that people’s experiences vary greatly depending on the intersection of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, degree of ability, and so on. The idea here is that we must recognize that not all perspectives are the same but that all are legitimate and valuable. By understanding intersectionality, feminism can expand its reach and improve the lives of more people.

Kimberlé Crenshaw (1959) 3rd Wave (edited) Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality,’ Intersectionality refers to the idea that people’s experiences vary greatly depending on the intersection of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, degree of ability, and so on, recognising that not all perspectives are the same but that all are legitimate and valuable.

Judith Butler (1956) Judith Butler

Judith Butler is a feminist thinker and philosopher who is largely connected with developing queer theory, an offshoot of gender studies that serves to deconstruct our very notions of this concept suggest gender is something more fluid and egalitarian. Queer theory largely acknowledges the oppressiveness and toxicity of conventional gender relations

Judith Butler (edited)

Butler looks closely at queer theory, an offshoot of gender studies, aiming to deconstruct and challenge our notions of gender. Suggesting it is something more fluid and egalitarian, acknowledging the oppressiveness and toxicity of conventional gender relations.

Virginia Woolf (1882 1942) 1st Wave, https://squaderno.altervista.org/2018/01/15/virginia-woolf-the-pioneer-of-feminism/?doing_wp_cron=1590439846.7017519474029541015625

Was a pioneer of the early twentieth century feminism, working as a journalist and writer, Woolf was seen as an outsider for her incredibly actual and free vision of the woman in the society,

Gloria Steinem 2nd Wave the telegraph / Bazaar

Steinem led the women's liberation movements throughout the '60s and '70 and continues to do so today. Co-founder of the feminist themed Ms. Magazine and several female groups that changed the face of feminism.

Angela Davis

Davis played a crucial part in the Civil Rights movement and was a key leader in the Black Power movement. She has relentlessly fought to champion the progress of women's rights for over six decades.

Maya Angelou

Through her literature, public speaking and powerful writing, Maya Angelou inspired both women and African Americans to overcome gender and race discrimination.

Audre Lorde

Audre Lorde channeled her powerful voice through writing and poetry, exploring female identity and life as a Black lesbian and writing about issues that affected women across the country during the height Civil Rights movement.

Yoko Ono / Bazaar

Most known for her peaceful protests with John Lennon, Ono has also been a voice for gender equality throughout the years. Her 1972 essay, "The Feminization of Society" helped mark the female revolution of the '70s.

Oprah Winfrey / Bazaar

Motivated by the unequal pay she received in the start of her broadcasting career, Oprah set out to start her own television show and from there built an empire catering to helping women grow, develop and thrive.

Madonna / Bazaar

Madonna built her entire career on pushing the limits of women and sexuality through her songs and music videos. Breaking gender stereotypes along the way, encouraging women to take ownership over their sexuality and lives.

Malala Yousafzai the telegraph/ Bazaar

The courageous teenager rose to fame with her memoir, I Am Malala, documenting her fearless journey as a young student fighting for access to education in Pakistan. Ever since, Malala has been traveling the world advocating for education rights for women and children through her foundation, The Malala Fund.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie / Bazaar

Adichie has become a vital author in the modern day feminist movement. Some of her most prominent pieces, Americanah, We Should All Be Feminists and Dear Ijeawele, Or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions, have been instrumental in advocating for women's rights and representing African culture.

Roxane Gay

A crucial voice for modern-day women, Gay's writings tackle issues like race, gender identity, sexual identity, sexual assault and disability.

Emma Watson / Bazaar

She helped launch the #HeForShe movement, highlighting that feminism isn’t just a fight for women, its for men too! Along side her own feminist book club and plenty of conversation about what it means to be a feminist today.

0 notes

yuanyuanxu-me · 4 years

Text

What is Critical Race Theory (CRT)?

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a framework for analyzing (as well as changing) the realities of race and racism in society. A way of critically looking at race relations today.

Like Critical Pedagogy, CRT is not a thing in and of itself. CRT continues to inspire and inform Critical Pedagogy and critical educational discourse.

CRT is set of lenses (tenets) we can use as critical educators to check ourselves and look at the policies, stories, curricula, and other narratives around us and our students.

Colorblindness

Inspired by MLK ‘I have a dream speech’ - but altered meaning to focus on not seeing difference, rather than original intention/reference towards equality.

Allows you to avoid talking about race, a form of denial (‘ostrich in the sand’), but in the meanwhile Whites face reverse racism.

Connected to differences between Equity and Equality - equal resources do not help equal the systems in place that disadvantage unequally

Does not address inequity directly

Children are aware of racial difference, adults must address but often avoid

Teachers talk of ‘Fear of…’ reinforcing stereotypes, mis-stating, pity, etc.

Seeming neutrality

“The normalization of whiteness produces the coloblind ideology.” (Dipti Desai)

See: CRT Chapter, p. 26; Gloria Ladson Billings, p. 29; Racial Awareness, p. 2-4

Whiteness as property

bell hooks addresses intersection of race and gender, rape as assertion of dominance/dominion “racism and sexism are interlocking systems of domination which uphold and sustain one another” hooks, Race and Sex, p. 59

US was conceived and built on notion of property - connected to citizenship (who could vote, and who could not)

Whiteness connected to privileges - financial benefits and invisible/unearned privileges

Reproduced within structures of capitalism: based on originary system of chattel slavery and violent colonial disposession of indigenous land (bc they did not believe in notion of property/ownership of land), continues through more recent systems of disenfranchisement: Black codes, Redlining, legal definitions of whiteness (Dred Scot, Plessy v. Ferguson)

“Whites know they possess a property that people of color do not and that to possess it confers aspects of citizenship not available to others. Harris’s (1993) argument that the ‘property functions of whiteness’ (p. 1731) - rights of disposition, rights to use and enjoyment, reputation and status property, and the absolute right to exclude - make the American dream of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ a more likely and attainable reality for Whites as citizens.” -- Ladson Billings, p. 26

Explains the expanding wealth gap.

See: Gloria Ladson Billings p. 25-26; Cameron Rowland, 91020000;

Meritocracy (Yuanyuan)

Similar to colorblindness, meritocracy is known as a political effort admitting individual efforts, talents and achievements towards equality regardless of one’s social class and race, aiming to deconstruct oppressive racial structures and reconstruct equitable and socially just relations of power in schools.

Meritocracy creates socioeconomic disparity, which directly affects the distribution of resources and quality of education.

It is closely correlated with high-standard entrance exams/placements, which is dominant by most financially rich and socially powerful elites and aggravates social and financial segregation. -Segregation Has Been the Story of New York City’s Schools for 50 Years, New York Times

Embedded with individual equality, the practice highlights the efforts of individuals, but fails to recognize the function of social, historical, or institutional process. (Ladson-Billings)

Meritocracy doesn’t practically resolve social/political/racial inequality with the existence of “bipartisan support for the privatization of school through charters and vouchers, and high suspension and expulsion rates for Black and Latina/o students at schools”.- Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall, Moving beyond Equality. P31-p32

Meritocracy remains dominated by the power structures, as Angela Davis states, “policies of enlightenment by themselves do not necessarily lead to radical transformation of power structures.”

Intersectionality (Alexis)

Recognizing the interconnectedness of social justice movements. It is also a way to recognize people and their identities as complex. Intersectionality does not hold one social justice cause above another, but rather recognizes the link of oppression under systemic constructs. For example, in 1972 the Gay Sunshine: A Newspaper of Gay Liberation published an article called We Are All Fugitives that, “Visually connected queer struggles with anti-prison, anti-colonial, feminist, Black Power and other liberation movements” (Quinn and Meiners P. 30). bell hooks says, “Black liberation struggle must be re-visioned so that it is no longer equated with maleness. We need a revolutionary vision of black liberation, one that emerges from a feminist standpoint and addresses the collective plight of black people.” She’s saying that with out a feminist framework applied to black liberation, the efforts will disproportionatley aid black men and not women. It is the intersection of black liberation and feminism that is necessary for progress.

“There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not lead single-issue lives.” Audre Lorde

Interest Convergence (Sarah W)

Some CRT scholars suggest “interest convergence” in response to contention that civil rights laws serve the interests of whites

Defined as “the place where the interests of whites and people of color intersect“ (Ladson-Billings).

Example of Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday commemoration in Arizona:

State of Arizona originally deemed MLK Jr Day too costly and wouldn’t recognize the holiday for state workers and agencies. African American groups and supporters began boycotting. When the NBA and NFL suggested high profile games not be played in Arizona, the decision was reversed. When the position on the holiday could have negative effects on tourism and sport entertainment venues, state interests converged with the interests of African-American community

“Converging interests, not support of civil rights, led to the reversal of the state’s position” (Ladson-Billings).

Deficit Model (Sarah S)

Focuses on students’ weaknesses

“Critical Race Theory suggests that current instructional strategies presume that African American students are deficient. As a consequence, classroom teachers are engaged in a never-ending quest for “the right strategy or technique” to deal with “at-risk” students.” African American students thus are addressed in a language and manner denoting failure and are often involved in some sort of remediation. When using a set of teaching techniques, the students instead of the techniques are found to be lacking. (Ladson-Billings)

Children are aware of racial differences as well as racism and begin picking apart societal negatives (or weaknesses) which apply to themselves at a young age (Derman-Sparks et al.)

Microaggressions (Zack)

Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups. (Sue, Capodilupo, Torino, Bucceri, Holder & Nadal, 2007).

The term racial microaggressions was first proposed by psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, MD, in the 1970s, but psychologists have significantly amplified the concept in recent years.

From Buzzfeed, here are 15 Microaggressions heard by employees:

1. What are you?

2. So what do you guys speak in Japan? Asian?

3. You don’t act like a normal black person, ‘ya know?

4. Courtney, I never see you as a black girl.

5. So, like, what are you?

6. You don’t speak Spanish?

7. No, you’re white.

8. So, what does your hair look like today?

9. So, you’re Chinese, right?

10. You’re not really Asian.

11. Why is your daughter so white?

12. You’re really pretty for a dark skin girl

13. Can you read this? (A Japanese character)

14. Why do you sound white?

15. Can you see as much as white people? You know, because of your eyes?

Anti-essentialism (Victoria)

Has a lot of connection with intersectionality

“No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity. A white feminist may also be Jewish or working class or a single mother… An Asian may be a recently arrived Hmong of rural background and unfamiliar with mercantile life or a fourth-generation Chinese with a father who is a university professor and a mother who operates a business. Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances.” (Delgado, Stefancic, 2001) Not all people of the same race have the same experiences. There’s a wide variety of experiences within one race, and oftentimes we’ll have multiple identities that will overlap or conflict with each other.

Hegemony (Ari)

-Hegemony is the internalization of dominant structures in society

-internal agreeance & submissiveness of power structures, sometimes because of not wanting to face furthur discrimination (example: refraining from using a non-english language in public)

-attempts to deconstruct hegemony is known as “counter-hegemony”

-power structure examples: white person & POC, male & female, thin person or large person, elder (wise) & younger (inexperienced), able bodied person & disabled person

-being hyper-aware of these and allowing them to continue, joining this system of oppression

#philosophy

0 notes

fatphobiabusters · 7 years

Note

I've seen a few terms on this site (ableist, terf, and swerf) almost everywhere, and I was hoping if you could explain what it means. Thanks!

Hi anon! I’m technically taking a break from this blog, but I actually really wanted to answer this question in particular because it’s really important. I hope you don’t mind!

Content note: violence, transphobia, whorephobia, sex shaming, use of slurs, rape mention, death mention, murder mention, genitalia mention, pedophilia mention

1. Ableist

Ableism is hate, oppression, harassment, disdain, disrespect, erasure, etc related to disabled people. It can go from openly hating and mocking disabled people, to normalized ableism in the language (the use of ableist slurs like “dm*b”, “l*me”, “st*pid”, etc). It can also be not taking disabled people into account when stating things (for example “just go and walk every day to be healthier!” when a lot of people CAN’T walk).

To quote Urban Dictionary:

Ableism is the discrimination or prejudice against people who have disabilities. Ableism can take the form of ideas and assumptions, stereotypes, attitudes and practices, physical barriers in the environment, or larger scale oppression. It is oftentimes unintentional and most people are completely unaware of the impact of their words or actions.

The thought that people with disabilities are dependent and require the care and support of someone else is an example of ableism. Sometimes this comes out in the form of people helping people with disabilities without asking them if they need assistance (and of course waiting the affirmative response).Another example would be in designing spaces, places, events, information, communication, and technology without considering the variety of needs of people with disabilities. For example, a building that is built to code can still be technically inaccessible if the ramp is around the back of the building or if there is no automatic door opener installed.

Another quote from Urban Dictionary explains it this way:

Ableism is a form of discrimination toward people with disabilities either physical or mental. Generally, ableism prevents disabled persons from having the same access to rights and services that average people have no problems obtaining.

Wikipedia explains it this way:

In ableist societies, able-bodiedness is viewed as the norm; people with disabilities are understood as those that deviate from that norm. Disability is seen as something to overcome or to fix, for example, through medical intervention. The ableist worldview holds that disability is an error or a failing rather than a consequence of human diversity, akin to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. One common type of ableist behavior denies others’ autonomy by speaking for or about them rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. An example of this behavior occurs when a waiter speaks to an aid or a companion instead of directly to the person with a disability.

Other definitions of ableism include those of Chouinard, who defines it as “ideas, practices, institutions, and social relations that presume able-bodiedness, and by so doing, construct persons with disabilities as marginalized […] and largely invisible ‘others,’” and of Amundson and Taira, who define ableism as “a doctrine that falsely treats impairments as inherently and naturally horrible and blames the impairments themselves for the problems experienced by the people who have them.”

Ableism is also related to mental disabilities and mental illnesses as well. Discrimination against someone for things like having a low IQ, being “cr*zy,” not processing information or emotions in a way deemed “normal,” and other similar acts are all ableism. Other words for this specific form of ableism include “mentalism” and “sanism,” although I personally dislike those terms.

Wikipedia explains:

Mentalism or sanism is a form of discrimination and oppression because of a mental trait or condition a person has, or is judged to have. This may or may not be described in terms of mental disorder or disability. The discrimination is based on numerous factors such as: stereotypes about neurodivergence (e.g. autism, ADHD, bipolar, schizophrenia, personality disorder diagnoses), specific behavioral phenomena (e.g. stuttering, tics), or supposed intelligence.

Like other “isms” such as sexism and racism, mentalism involves multiple intersecting oppressions and complex social inequalities and imbalances of power. It can result in covert discrimination by multiple, small insults and indignities. It is characterized by judgments of another person’s perceived mental health status. These judgments are followed by actions such as blatant, overt discrimination (refusal of service, denying of human rights). Mentalism impacts how individuals are treated by the general public, by mental health professionals, and by institutions, including the legal system. The negative attitudes may also be internalized.

The terms mentalism (from mental) and sanism (from sane) have some widespread use, though concepts such as social stigma, and in some cases ableism, may be used in similar but not identical ways.

While mentalism and sanism are used interchangeably, sanism is becoming predominant in certain circles, such as academics, those who identify as mad and mad advocates and in a socio-political context where sanism is gaining ground as a movement. The movement of sanism is an act of resistance among those who identify as mad, consumer survivors, and mental health advocates. In academia evidence of this movement can be found in the number of recent publications about sanism and social work practice.

When someone says something is “ableist,” they are saying it contributes to ableism (or mentalism/sanism, if you choose to use such terms). In other words, they are saying it is discriminatory to people with mental illness, mental disability, or physical disability.

2. TERF or TWERF

I’m sure you already know to some extent what feminism is, but just in case, let me share with you a quote:

Feminism comprises a number of egalitarian social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women. It is the doctrine advocating social, political and all other rights for women which are equal to those of men.

Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman’s right of contract and property; a woman’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy (e.g. on matters such as reproductive rights, abortion rights, access to contraception and quality prenatal care); women’s rights to protection from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; women’s workplace rights (e.g. maternity leave, equal pay, glass ceiling practices, etc); and opposition to all other forms of discrimination.

Feminist Theory is an extension of Feminism into theoretical or philosophical fields, such as anthropology, sociology, economics, women’s studies, literary criticism, art history, psychoanalysis and philosophy. It aims to understand gender inequality and focuses on gender politics, power relations and sexuality, as well as the promotion of women’s rights and interests.

Wikipedia explains feminism this way:

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women’s rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.

Feminist campaigns are generally considered to be a main force behind major historical societal changes for women’s rights, particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited with achieving women’s suffrage, gender neutrality in English, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property. Although feminist advocacy is, and has been, mainly focused on women’s rights, some feminists, including bell hooks, argue for the inclusion of men’s liberation within its aims because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles. Feminist theory, which emerged from feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women’s social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues concerning gender.

Numerous feminist movements and ideologies have developed over the years and represent different viewpoints and aims. Some forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle class, and educated perspectives. This criticism led to the creation of ethnically specific or multicultural forms of feminism, including black feminism and intersectional feminism.

When you see someone being called a TERF, it is a warning to others that this is a feminist who is dangerous, bigoted, and hateful towards transgender individuals. Calling someone a TERF means you are calling them a feminist who is transphobic and promoting hateful, antitrans ideologies.

To quote Geek Feminism:

TERF is an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Sometimes, “exclusionary” is expanded as “eliminationist” or “exterminationist” instead to more accurately convey the degree to which TERFs advocate for harm towards trans people, specifically trans people who were coercively assigned male at birth.

Some TERFs call themselves “gender-critical feminists”, a term which is synonymous with “TERF”.

Their position (which is not shared by this wiki) denies that trans people’s self-affirmed genders and sexes are equally valid as cis people’s self-affirmed genders and sexes. It has a decades-long history of allying with anti-feminist causes in denying trans people access to health care, and other human rights.

Unsurprisingly, many TERFs complain that “TERF” should be regarded as a slur.

According to Tracey at The TERFs (an anti-TERF site) and Cristan Williams at The Transadvocate, the term TERF was first used in writing by Viv Smythe/tigtog of Hoyden About Town in August 2008. tigtog said in the interview with Cristan Williams that she believes that she and Lauredhel coined it some time prior as a chat shorthand.

In some contexts, you might also hear “TWERF” used instead to convey that the person isn’t against all trans people, but rather just transgender women (women who were assigned male at birth).

In case you didn’t know what radical feminism is, this is how Wikipedia explains it:

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a purely political process. This includes challenging the notion of traditional gender roles, opposing the sexual objectification of women, and raising public awareness about such issues as rape and violence against women.

Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s, typically viewed patriarchy as a “transhistorical phenomenon" prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, “not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form" and the model for all others. Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.

Radical feminists locate the root cause of women’s oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in anarchist feminism, socialist feminism, and Marxist feminism).

In other words, radical feminism doesn’t relate to being “extremist,” as the word radical implies, but rather to eliminating the root of misogyny and the oppression of women.

Many radical feminists are TERFS, but not all are. I was always told that radical feminists coined the word TERF to separate them from the movement, because transgender exclusion was, in their minds, not part of their movement. I can’t verify this for sure.

Many people do not seem to know this, but there are many branches of feminism. Radical feminism is one of hundreds of schools of thought within feminism.

Philosophy Basics explains:

Radical Feminism considers the capitalist hierarchy of society, which it describes as sexist and male-based, as the defining feature of women’s oppression. Most Radical Feminists see no alternatives other than the total uprooting and reconstruction of society in order to overthrow patriarchy and achieve their goals.

Separatist Feminism is a form of Radical Feminism, which argues that the sexual disparities between men and women are unresolvable, that men cannot make positive contributions to the feminist movement, and that even well-intentioned men replicate patriarchal dynamics.

Sex-Positive Feminism is a response to anti-pornography feminists who argue that heterosexual pornography is a central cause of women’s oppression, and that sexual freedom (which may or may not involve a woman’s ight to participate in heterosexual pornography) is an essential component of women’s freedom.

Anarcha-Feminism (or Anarchist Feminism) is another offshoot of Radical Feminism and combines Feminist and Anarchist beliefs in which patriarchy is viewed as a manifestation of hierarchy so that the fight against patriarchy is an essential part of the class struggle and the Anarchist struggle against the state.

Black Feminism (or Womanism) argues that sexism, class oppression and racism are inextricably bound together. Alice Walker and other Womanists claim that black women experience a different and more intense kind of oppression from that of white women.

Socialist Feminism (or Marxist Feminism) connects the oppression of women to Marxist ideas about exploitation, oppression and labour. Socialist Feminists see the need to work alongside men and all other groups, and to focus their energies on broad change that affects society as a whole, and not just on an individual basis.

Liberal Feminism (or Individualist Feminism) seeks the equality of men and women through political and legal reform. Liberal Feminists see the personal individual interactions between men and women as the place from which to transform society and argue that no major change to the structure of society is needed.

French Feminism (or Post-Structural Feminism) tends to be more philosophical and more literary, than the more pragmatic Anglophone Feminism. It is less concerned with immediate political doctrine and generally focuses on theories of “the body”. The 1949 treatise “The Second Sex” by the French author and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908 - 1986) is a foundational tract of contemporary Feminism, in which she sets out a feminist Existentialism which prescribes a moral revolution and focuses on the concept of Woman as the quintessential Other, which de Beauvoir identifies as fundamental to women’s oppression.

Eco-Feminism links Feminism with ecology, arguing that the domination of women stems from the same patriarchal ideologies that bring about the domination and destruction of the environment.

Christian Feminism is a branch of feminist theology which seeks to interpret and understand Christianity in light of the equality of women and men, which has been largely ignored historically.

Pro-Feminism refers to support of Feminism without implying that the supporter is a member of the feminist movement. It is usually used in reference to men who are actively supportive of Feminism and of efforts to bring about gender equality.

And this is not, by any means, a complete list. There are many other branches of feminist theory and feminist thought, and many different ways that people can engage in feminist activism.

But TERFS often only acknowledge radical feminism (which they consider the only real feminism) and liberal feminism.

Transgender Advocate explains the warning signs that you as an individual might be a TERF:

I’ve noticed that there seems to be some confusion about what a TERF* is so, here’s a quick guide to help you figure out if you’re a TERF. Chances are that you’re a TERF if you believe that you’re a feminist when you…

1.) Claim that trans women are cis men, that trans men are cis women and purposefully misgender trans people.

2.) Out trans people to employers.

3.) Tell trans women their surgery is about supporting rape culture.

4.) Assert that lesbian-identified trans women can’t be lesbian.

5.) Claim that a world without trans people is preferable.

6.) Find that your anti-trans arguments and the anti-trans arguments of far right-wing groups match.

7.) Assert cis privilege isn’t real; that non-trans people aren’t privileged in a society that’s hostile to trans people.

8.) Claim that gender isn’t real, but the MAAB/FAAB binary is.

9.) Claim that trans surgeries were pioneered by men in service of the patriarchy.

10.) Lie about rape and death threats you’ve received from trans people.

11.) Fearmonger about the rape/violence threat trans women pose to cis women in the women’s restroom.

12.) Assert that trans people transition to satisfy their sexual urges.

13.) Degrade and dehumanize the genitals of trans people.

14.) Work to overturn trans equality protections.

15.) Work to halt access to trans medical care.

16.) Appeal to the Klan Fallacy.

17.) Compare transition to a disgusting Frankenstein-like process.

18.) Claim that trans people transition due to political or social pressures.

19.) Claim that when you work to halt the propagation of anti-feminist stereotypes it’s empowerment, but when trans people work to halt the propagation of anti-trans stereotypes it’s censorship .

20.) Assert that trans women transition because they’re actually gay men and that trans men transition because they’re lesbians wanting to escape the patriarchy.

21.) Threaten actual radical feminist organizations with killing its trans members, and then show up at the radfem event armed with guns.

22.) Beat actual radical feminists for protecting trans women from a TERF bashing.

23.) Mob Lesbian Avengers who have a trans kid with them and then threaten the kid with a knife.

24.) Menace a butch Lesbian radical feminist so much that the radfem decides to start their own inclusive Women’s Music Festival.

25.) Threaten a group of trans women with bodily violence so that they have to start something called Camp Trans in protest.

26.) Promote so-called “bathroom bills” because you think it’s “pro-Lesbian.”

27.) Find that Tea Party Republicans start promoting your TERF rhetoric.

28.) Promote right-wing propaganda mill nonsense to substantiate your hate because they’re the only ones who, in your estimation, are your ideological allies.

29.) Find that right-wing pundits and even hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church defend TERF hate.

30.) Appeal to vaginal odors as being a sexed essence which demarcates an authentic sexed status, so that trans women aren’t actual women because the vaginas of trans women are so smelly that it causes “serious smell issues” while, simultaneously being so non-smelly that a trans woman can never know (as actual women apparently do) what it’s like to have a “big, hairy, smelly vagina.”

Bonus: Pretend that the term “TERF” –popularized, in 2008 by a radical feminist-inclusive feminist community as a way of distinguishing between radical feminists from anti-trans bigots who label themselves “radical feminists”– was actually created by the trans community in order to slur feminism.

I highly recommend these sources if you would like to know more:

Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism: What Exactly Is It, And Why Does It Hurt?

The Terfs

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism on Rational Wiki

Of these sources, The Terfs will be the most helpful, but it contains a lot of violence and disturbing language. Please stay safe!

3. SWERF

SWERFS are another subgroup of radical feminists, very similar to TERFS. Often, someone who is a TERF will also be a SWERF, but this is not always the case.

Urban Dictionary defines SWERF this way:

Acronym for "Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist”. A person who espouses to be a feminist but who does not believe that women engaged in ANY form of voluntary sex work should be included in the fight for equality, especially in employment or salary parity. This rabid exclusion of an entire class of women is usually a belief based on misplaced uptight morality.

Rational Wiki explains further:

Sex worker exclusionary radical feminism (also known as SWERF) is yet another offshoot of feminism, one that opposes women’s participation in pornography and prostitution. The term was coined to match that of TERF, as their memberships overlap. Their ideology also overlaps as both subgroups follow a prescriptive, normative approach to feminism; i.e., telling women what to do — TERFs with their gender, and SWERFs with their sexuality.

SWERFs criticize the objectification and exploitation of women within pornography and the sex industry, as well as the violence and abuse that sex workers frequently suffer.

SWERFs typically go completely overboard and dump on sex-workers who chose their profession freely, even in places where it is completely legal and safe, claiming that the sex workers are nothing more than deluded victims (and co-perpetrators) of human trafficking. Much like white supremacists might insist that adoption agencies helping children from the third world find parents in the west are nothing more than deluded extinctionists. This dogmatic hostility to voluntary sex work is known as whorephobia.

Many SWERFS argue that they do not like when men control women’s sexuality. But these same people do exactly the same thing. They attack women for being involved in sex work and/or BDSM/kink, or liking porn. Sometimes they will also police women for what they wear or for having makeup, and will also criticize people for playing dressup with their daughters because the believe this is “sexualizing children” and contributing to “pedophilia culture.”

SJW Wiki uses this quote from Tumblr to explain:

“The mere fact that SWERFs are not actively antagonizing workers in the garment industry, or the domestic labor industry, or the farming and food production industry, or even going after MALE sex workers to the degree that they speak over and attack female sex workers shows that their their actions aren’t about ending incidents of abuse, discrimination and sexual misconduct in the workforce, but about controlling women’s bodies, specifically women’s sexual agency .”

—Musings of a Naked Lady, on Tumblr

Interestingly, when I Google “TERF,” many articles about how awful and hateful TERFS are show up. But when I Google “SWERF,” most of the articles that appear are defending TERFS and SWERFS and arguing that these terms are an attack on women and radical feminism.

I think the moral of the story there is that more people are uncomfortable with transphobia than they are whorephobia, which is sad because many many people see nothing wrong with transphobia.

I hope you found this helpful, anon! Let us know if you have more questions!

💖 Mod Bella 💖

193 notes · View notes

equalrightsforfathers · 7 years

Text

Seeking no more and no less than legal equality and genuine equity under the law

If you are facing Family Court Abuse and Children Protection Services Agency: CPS-DFYS / DCP&P / DCF / DHHS [whatever name CPS is called in your state] is involved in your case please join us to help defeat their fraud, pain and suffering, emotional, physical, psychological and financial abuse -racket.

United we can! This is NOT Fathers Rights groups but FAMILIES fighting together the system. There are woman and men protecting our children's future that understand that Judges are destroying us all for money.

Men's Rights Internet Statement

– Living Document Born March 2013

General

principles that we believe are a forming, coalescing consensus.

A working group formed in December of 2012 through a variety of men’s rights publications, forums, and YouTube channels. Over four dozen people from around the globe participated in making suggestions and giving general input. Despite the large number of people from diverse backgrounds, and the fact that almost none of the participants knew most of the others, its development was shockingly un-contentious, even on some of the more contentious points.

This is not a document anyone is expected to sign or pledge to. It is an effort to identify a general consensus.

This document is not released with the intention being the definitive statement of goals for all men's advocates, but rather, a set of goals and ideas that we believe represent common sentiments within the movement. People will be free to agree with all of these, most of these, some of these, or only one of these; if they'll work with us on any of them, then we'll work with them on that. Furthermore, other groups are welcome to take these goals and adapt and change them for their own purposes.

The gender war is a destructive social construct. Viewing the other sex as an enemy to be fought, or an oppressor to be overthrown, does not benefit men or women. Only a select few will profit from the hostility and distrust this creates. The interests of both men and women are best served by ending the gender war, and to working together to alleviate the iniquities visited upon all human beings, regardless of sex.

Feminism is not necessarily what feminists say it is

Many prominent individuals who self-identify as feminists espouse ideals of equality and equity, but often act against an ethic of equality under the law. For this reason, many men’s advocates have come to the conclusion that feminist activism is dependent on identifying women as victims and men as perpetrators of oppression. While those not solidly entrenched in the day to day gender struggle tend to think “feminism is about equality,” professionals at universities, in government, and in political action groups often act against legal equality and genuine equity through their decisions and actions--and do so in the name of feminism.

Furthermore, anyone genuinely working under the “feminism is about equality” mentality should be natural allies in the collective fight for men's rights. But those feminists with actual power frequently endorse and exploit sexist ideas in order to promote their divisive ideology, and to raise money, and dismiss, marginalize, or outright mock men’s issues, occasionally even with violence.

For these reasons, self described feminists should not necessarily be considered de-facto experts on what constitutes gender equity. Men's voices must be heard, even if women aren't always comfortable with what they hear.

Traditionalism is a choice, not an obligation

No one can speak for all men's advocates, but most try to be accurate, objective, and honest about masculinity and femininity. They recognize that men and women are different, but they don’t want to promote discrimination, stereotypes, or prejudices that would limit anyone’s ability to exercise their own ability and talent.

Chivalry, a concept in which men have a social obligation to put their interests below women's, is common in many countries. Failure to adhere to this code can result in significant social backlash against men. We reject a code that ascribes greater value to one sex or the other. When men's advocates attempt to describe differences between the sexes, they are not trying to prescribe them. Men's human rights advocates look to the future, they don’t cling to the past, and they agree that your genitals should not determine your lifestyle or your rights. If you want to be a traditionalist, be one. If you don’t, that’s fine too.

Misandry is real, and pernicious

Most

respected dictionaries now recognize that misandry - the hatred or contempt of male humans - is a real word. Some gender ideologues continue to insist that misandry does not and cannot exist, but MRAs, by and large, understand that misandry is real, and is being used to strip men and boys of basic human rights and dignity. Misandric messages invalidate boys and men by telling them that they are guilty by association to all the harmful acts committed by other men, for no other reason than that they are male, but ignoring the corresponding association to positive acts by other men, of discovery, invention, daring, bravery, sacrifice, loyalty, love, and kindness. Misandric messages also tend to ignore negative and harmful actions by women. In general, misandry tells men and boys that part of what defines who they are, their very identity as male, is something dangerous and shameful. These messages are culturally toxic and psychologically harmful to men and boys.

Men

deserve the right to dignity, just as much as women. Men deserve the same right as women to not be associated with despicable actions simply because they were committed by members of their sex. Men’s rights advocates agree that misandry is real, and that it should not be tolerated any more than isogyny would be, and have taken on the responsibility for acknowledging, exposing, and opposing misandry. Because if they don’t do it, then who else will?

Strong, independent women are helpful, not helpless

Most men's human rights advocates love seeing strong, capable, and independent women as part of society. But they are disappointed to see the rise of idealized, infantilized, sheltered, and fearful women. Men's human rights advocates understand that power and authority should come with responsibility and accountability.

Rewards come with risks: if you take credit then you should also accept blame. If you criticize, then you should also be able to accept criticism. Making excuses for bad behavior by women, or blaming it on men, is condescending. Women who want equality should speak out against such attitudes and behaviors. The only way people experience personal growth is through life experience and our present society stunts women’s growth b coddling them.

Men's rights advocates object to feminism’s narrow focus on women’s problems and fears, and to feminism’s track record of treating human issues as divisive gender issues. Men's advocates object to gynocentrism (focusing only on the female perspective) and female supremacism. We respect skill and maturity, regardless of whether the person is male or female.

General Men’s Rights Movement Goals

When it comes to men’s activism, some have already decided that their role will mostly be passive: become Men Going Their Own Way, by refusing to participate in marriage or even cohabitation with the opposite sex, or otherwise defining their own lives outside the dominant gender discourse, and nothing more. This is fine, as we are all free to make our own choices as to what role(s) we would like to play.

Others feel that "defeating feminism" is the only goal. Our view is that even without feminism, many of the problems we face would remain.

As in any movement there will be people with significant influence and authority even if this authority is informal. Who these people are will change constantly. As a result “We” can just mean “I.” There is nothing preventing you from deciding to care about one of these items, or three of them, or half of them, or all of them. The point is, they are goals not dogma.

Some of the goals for the men's movement are (in no particular order):

We stand for all boys and men. Questions of race, creed, color, nationality or sexual orientation are completely irrelevant to us. This is non-negotiable: we are a movement for the needs, well-being and interests of all men and boys everywhere, seeking no more and no less than legal equality and/or genuine equity under the law.

We are a human rights movement, and as such concepts of universal human rights are a part of that movement. Addressing the needs of men and boys is not a zero-sum game. Our focus is on men and boys because we believe men and boys are in particular need of help at this time.

We have no interest in legally denying anyone the right to control their reproduction; however we seek equitable reproductive rights for all persons regardless of sex. As a movement we believe no one should be forced into parenthood by the state or another individual, and that sexual intercourse is not consent to parenthood. As such, mothers seeking arbitration from the courts in order to collect child support from a man she names the father should be required to submit a written instrument of consent signed by him, in which he explicitly accepts responsibility for, as well as defines his rights to, his child/ren. This will allow him to positively establish paternity through a DNA test before signing and allow both mother and father to define the rights and responsibilities of both parties rather than allowing the state to do so. Furthermore, if a mother conceals a pregnancy and subsequent birth from a father and he learns of this afterward without being given the opportunity to negotiate parenthood with the mother then he should have redress to obtain paternal rights and responsibilities.

Development and availability of a male fertility control device, drug or method that is safe, affordable, effective and reversible should be a top priority.

Paternity testing should be a standard practice when a father is added to a birth certificate or otherwise formally (legally) recognized as the child’s father. Where there is a willfully false claim of paternity, prosecution should occur.

If a woman opts to give up a child for adoption, all reasonable efforts must be made to allow the father the option of being that child’s sole parent before the child can be given over to any adoption agency.

Women are frequently pedestalized, and men demonized, when it comes to criminal arrest, conviction, and sentencing. This is an injustice against men and infantilizes women. Laws and legal practices and customs which establish lighter or heavier sentences based on sex should be abolished.

Foster the emergence of a new cultural narrative where all men and women are encouraged to live their lives as they see fit, without preferential treatment, while also being expected to bear the responsibility for their personal choices.

Default physical and legal co-parenting must be the norm where both parents are competent, willing, and do not endanger the child’s physical or mental well being. We wish to promote a narrative of recognizing fair custody arrangements towards fathers as an important issue, both in terms of fair treatment of fathers, and as being in the best interest of all children's healthy development and quality of life. In divorce or separation of non-married parents, daily contact with both parents, and living arrangements which strive to be as close as practical to 50/50 time with both parents, should be the norm.

If there is strong evidence that children shouldn’t be with one or both parents, regular review of the conditions for access and visitation should occur to recognize that circumstances can and do change; the child’s right to both parents must be protected unless one or both has given up the child for adoption (i.e. legal surrender).

False and malicious accusations of rape or other violence, when they can be distinguished from mistaken accusations, must be subject to strict penalty under law. Laws against lying under oath or wasting time (of the police or courts) must be enacted where there are no such laws in place, and/or enforced without gender bias where they do exist.

The presumption of innocence must be seen as a fundamental right for anyone accused of any crime and restored to anyone accused of domestic violence or any form of assault, sexual or otherwise. So-called “rape shield” laws must either be extended to cover the accused as well as the accuser, or abolished entirely.

Debtor’s prison has been abolished in most civilized nations except in one crucial area: men who are unable to pay support payments due to disability or other impoverishment. This practice must be abolished, and debts owed due to support must be treated like any other debt to be paid, and subject to reasonable negotiation and renegotiation when circumstances do not make payment of support practical. Throwing men in jail for being unable to pay not only violates their fundamental human rights; it often robs children of their fathers and leaves those fathers unable to work to pay the debts they owe. This is an abomination and must be ended.

We seek to promote social recognition that men can be victims and women can be sex offenders, and that statements which belittle or marginalize the experiences of male victims of sexual assault, including male victims of female sex predators, are likely based on a worldview that pedastalizes women and demonizes men. Such attitudes are hateful and toxic, and must be opposed.

Standards for what constitutes illegal violence - domestic, sexual, or otherwise - should not discriminate on account of sex or such things as size or weight. Violence is violence. Assault is assault. Sexual assault is sexual assault. The law must be neutral regarding sexual characteristics or physical traits. Zero tolerance policies which fail to differentiate between a heated argument and a crime must be abolished. Mandatory arrest policies must either be abolished or must treat both parties as potential co-criminals and both parties should be arrested. So-called “primary aggressor” policies which presuppose the existence of one “victim” and one “abuser” have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in most cases, and should be abolished as standing policy.

Mandatory restraining orders which isolate and intimidate couples who wish to communicate and cooperate with each other must be recognized as damaging, and the law must be made to recognize that such orders may damage career and reputations and as such should be expungeable if found to be fraudulently or frivolously obtained, or no longer needed.

Abuse of restraining orders by anyone seeking to use them as a weapon to deny access to children or gain an upper hand in divorce or custody disputes should not only be recognized, but subject to penalty under law.

Policies which allow alleged victims to be punished for refusing to cooperate with prosecution must be abolished.

Financial incentives for prosecution of any crime by the state must be abolished.

In divorce or separation of non-married parents, efforts should to be made to promote mediation and solutions that do not involve the court or other state agencies wherever possible.

Recognizing that marriage cannot be abolished by the state, because cohabiting persons will still have disputes over children and finances if they separate, “marriage” should be viewed as an enforceable contract. Couples wishing to marry should be allowed to negotiate what their marriage contracts involve to include issues such as child custody, any theoretical support, education, support payments in case of severance, and so on. Marriages are agreements between people, and contracts should spell out specifically what is and is not agreed to. In the absence of a formal contract, presumption of shared parenting must be enforced as noted above.

Any government funding towards health research and services, should such funding exist, should be allocated in a way that gives equal and fair consideration to the health needs of men, women, and children, recognizing that while maternal health influences the health of both boys and girls in the future generations, so too the health needs of boys and men should be recognized as equally important to all of society. We may argue later whether or how much government should spend on public health measures; in the meantime, men and boys must be given equal consideration under the law when there is such funding.

Government-funded educational programs (such as scholarships), if they exist, should either do away with preferential treatment by sex, or, be expanded to include programs to encourage males to enter fields where they are under-represented and or continue their education as they see it. One way or the other, the double standards in education must end.

Abolish medically unnecessary genital mutilation or surgery on infants and minors. If a person wishes to have their genitals altered, they may make this decision when they come of age.

There are documented and growing gender disparities in education with boys in particular lagging behind girls in multiple areas across much of the developed world. This must be addressed directly by looking at areas where boys as a group may have different educational needs from girls, and where teachers may be discriminating against boys consciously or unconsciously. Conscription or registration for conscription (“selective service”) must either be abolished or be an equal requirement for both sexes. One or the other…

We are under no illusion that all of these items will be automatically accepted overnight by everyone in the world, nor even that every men's advocate will necessarily agree with every word here. Nevertheless we believe it represents a road-map to a better future, and hope others will join, in whole or in part, in helping make these things happen.

This document last revised 3/11/2013. It is now considered “final,” although others remain free to copy and use it to their own purposes. However, modified copies must be clearly marked as modified from this original. Further discussion and debate is not only allowed, it is encouraged!

The initiator and primary editor of this document was Dean Esmay, who is solely responsible for any errors, omissions, or oversights. Others who wish to be identified as having given suggestions, input, or other collaboration should contact the author and let him know if they want to be publicly acknowledged.

3/13/2013: minor typo fixed, “deciding care” changed to “deciding to care,” removal of unneeded colon and a couple of unneeded periods in titles.

3/17/2013: Stray HTML tags that crept into the original removed. Addition of numbers to each of the goal statements, not for priority purposes but solely to make them easy to distinguish in discussion.

4/3/2013: Removed stray tag.

youtube

1 note · View note

intersectionalitywomenswriting · 4 years

Text

Reflection

For my commonplace book, I focused on the topic of intersectionality. It was a topic that stuck with me when we learned about it at the beginning of the summer. I think it was something that struck me with so much interest is because it seems like something so simple that I have acknowledged before but never knew there was an actual term for this. It was also a huge shock to hear about how our legal system doesn’t usually consider intersectionality. Intersectionality, to me, really means acknowledging how people are not all the same, and everyone has may different aspects and traits that are brought together to create them.

At the top of my page, I define what intersectionality is along with a little diagram of it to help. I talk about how it is about how all the different social categories of a person fit and intersect. So, this could be what gender or race you are. But it could also be about what kind of education someone has had, someone’s economic status, or their sexuality. When finding how these things intersect with each other and create a new unique situation is what intersectionality it. The women that coined this term “intersectionality” is Kimberlé Crenshaw. She is a social activist who is also a professor. She created this term to help try and break down the hierarchy of race. While some believe that it creates more of a division at the social level, that is not her intent for intersectionality is. What Crenshaw wants is for people to see how differently a black woman will live from a white woman. The best example of this is the one she provided in her Ted Talk; this is also on my commonplace book. There was a black woman who applied for a job at a mechanics shop but did not get the job. She had a feeling this was because of discrimination, so she sued them and went to trial. But the court ruled it to be nothing, their evidence was they hire black people, and they hire women already, so how could they discriminate? While they hired black people, all of them were men. And while they did hire women, all of them were white. So, they did not hire black women. This case would have been ruled very differently if the courts viewed the case of discrimination against black women, not as two separate cases of black people and women. When they saw it as two different things, there was no case, but when it is viewed as one combined case, the case would have gone a lot differently. Crenshaw’s point with intersectionality is not to create another form of feminism where more labels are put on people. But it is to break down the race hierarchy and hopefully show people that no person is exactly alike. In cases like this, the legal system can create a way that helped connect the two things instead of dealing with them as separate.

Shawn Burns wrote some about intersectionality and the importance of connecting social categories. The quote that I have added to my Tumblr page states how gender is intersectional because everyone experiences it differently from the other aspects of their lives. I thought this quote was significant because it captures what intersectionality is all about and how it is connected to feminism. This quote came from a reading we had in class from Burns. Burns conveys how vital intersectionality is because it allows us to understand the context of a person’s life fully. When we can’t understand how being a woman gives some similar experiences, but overall, everyone’s experiences are different, then there will never be progress in the feminist movement. Burns talks about how a real global feminist will make sure to recognize diversity, as well.

We have seen many examples of this and learned a lot about this diversity through the class. I feel that I am a lot more educated now and feel more confident about global feminism. We have spent a couple of different weeks learning about Muslim women and their oppression. The most important objective I learned this summer is not to believe in every stereotype. And the other is to be careful how that I, as a privileged woman living in the US, would try to help women in the middle east. Sometimes when a privileged feminist strives to assist a woman in the middle east, they will be making them feel more oppressed. An excellent example of this is when someone thinks that a Muslim woman is oppressed because they are being “forced” to cover up and wear their hijab, but they choose to wear their hijab for their religion and beliefs. When someone who doesn’t understand this comes in and tries to change it for them it can be hurtful. This is where intersectionality is essential. They are all women and feel the oppression from that, the way other social categories like religion intersect with each person’s lives. This makes a difference in how everyone experiences their lives and how they choose to live their lives. People need to understand intersectionality and diversity to make a change in the global feminist movement.

Trying to make a change for the better in the present time, global feminist is something everyone is still fighting for. It is always a battle that women are taking on everywhere. It saddens me to think about how intersectionality was a term Crenshaw began to use back in 2016, and we are now in 2020, still with the same fights for human rights. There is a post in my commonplace book that I reblogged from our class because I liked what another student wrote. She talked about how sad we still have this same issue happening, but that at least in today’s world, it is a bit different type of fighting. Today, the issues are not just shut out; they are talked about. While there are many arguments among people, they are talking about the issue, which seems to be making a difference—issues among human rights used to be just shut out and not spoken about. Now people are speaking up and making these issues more prominent rather than kept to themselves; one of the things making a difference is this understanding of intersectionality. While there is still a significant issue behind human rights, intersectionality is becoming more of an understanding of the public. We see how all the discrimination someone faces could be doubles when two social categories intersect in their lives. There seems to be more urgency to help those who may be put in a lot of social categories discriminated against. Intersectionality is also just something that is discussed more among the public. When discussed and talked about more, that understanding begins to form more, and there is a change being made among the people as they understand more.

Another way the issues have changed is the support within social categories, and from one discriminated group to another. There is such power behind numbers, and people have taken this to the max. One of the posts on my commonplace book is of women altogether, showing how they are all different. I think it is imperative to show how these ladies are entirely different. Still, they are there to support one another because they all know what it feels like to be a woman and be discriminated against because of being a woman. But there is also a lot of support from different social groups that are also discriminated against. An excellent example of this was recently while the BLM movement was all over everywhere, and everyone was talking about it. There was protest everywhere, and it was also pride month. But the LGBT+ communities, who would typically be celebrating for themselves during that month, took it and supported the BLM movement instead for the most part. They also know how it feels not to be given their fundamental human rights, so in the wake of the BLM movement, they supported their black friends instead. This support of other social groups is showing support for intersectionality. Like with my example, I recently used how the LGBT+ community was supporting the BLM movement, there could be many people there with intersectionality that are a part of both these groups. Intersectionality, I think, is the reason for all of the support among the different groups. This intersectionality is what has brought these groups together.

Intersectionality is a crucial thing for everyone to learn about because it could be something a person is experiencing without even knowing. I am pleased that it is something that we took the time to learn about this semester. The progress we have seen in the feminist movement is due to the amazing women, like the ones we have learned about this summer. But I also think that without intersectionality, there would be no progress in the movement.

0 notes

johnclapperne · 6 years

Text

{#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

A man recently found out that I, the completely normal-looking and friendly young woman he had been chatting with, was a feminist.

This must have really shaken him up (I assume he’d never met one of us IRL before), because his next question was:

So you think women should be superior to men?

Naturally my first response was to assume he was kidding and laugh. Because… wut?

But no. This man was deadass serious. I have no idea what kind of people he had been exposed to, but he was completely under the impression that, since gender inequality no longer exists, feminists are trying to oppress men so that we can run the world.

The interesting thing was that this man really believes that since women are paid the same as men (false lol) and we can vote and own land now, so basically… any woman who feels oppressed at this point is just playing the victim card and want everything to be handed to them.

He also seemed to feel very strongly that identifying our movement according to gender is just “divisive” and that we should be focusing on “walking together” rather than “pitting ourselves against the good men trying to help us.”

Sigh.

Anyway, after this conversation turned sour, I got to thinking. Not about him, because he had nothing to offer but privileged nonsense, but about some of the beliefs we was spouting. I hear echoes of his views all the time, from good people who are genuinely struggling to understand why is feminism still a thing again…?

It’s very easy for people (aka people who aren’t actually reading feminist texts or following feminist leaders) to completely misunderstand the goal of feminism. They hear bits and pieces from snarky and inaccurate third-party sources like FOX news or whatever, and come away with the belief that feminism seems stupid, dangerous, or unnecessary.

If you frame it like “women whining about injustice instead of doing something about it” or “women wanting to oppress men,” then yeah, the whole thing is pretty unlikeable. Duh– that’s why so many anti-progressive (right-wing) sources spin it that way!

But those views are based on nothing more than malevolent gossip; a smear campaign designed to invalidate a movement that causes trouble for people who want to maintain the status quo.

That’s why I decided to set a few facts straight, and tackle some basic shit about what I’m fighting for when I say I’m a feminist. Obviously this is a much bigger topic than one essay’s worth, but I’ll do my best.

Q: Why do we still need feminism?

A: Because there is still gender inequality. There is still sexism, and discrimination based on gender, sexuality, and gender presentation. There is still exploitation and oppression based on gender.

Q: What is the goal of feminism?

A: There are many serious legislative and structural issues at the core of the feminist movement, like fighting for access to full reproductive health care and rights, access to affordable and high quality child-care options and paid family leave, an end to sexual exploitation and human trafficking, and fighting for better representation in media/entertainment as well as a more equal percentage of women in elected office, CEO positions, leadership positions.

Not to mention of course the right to not be sexually harassed/assaulted/raped, the right to not experience domestic violence, and equal pay for equal work. Oh, and the right to be LGBTQ or transgender without the barrage of violent and marginalizing fuckery that currently comes with that.

Note: It’s also important to acknowledge the intersections of oppression that cross categories such as race, ability, class, age, weight, etc. Intersectional feminism is about recognizing and fighting the various intersecting systems of power that marginalize and oppress people, because a black woman’s experience is completely different than a white woman’s experience, and a fat woman’s experience is completely different than a thin woman’s experience.

I wish I had more time to tackle the complicated intersectional landscape, but for the purpose of this essay, feminism’s goal is simply to end sexism, gender inequality, and gender bias.

Q: Who is the enemy of feminism?

A: Spoiler alert: it’s not men! Feminism is not anti man. Again, we’re just anti-sexism, anti-discrimination, anti-oppression, and anti-exploitation. The “enemy” is sexism, discrimination based on gender and sexuality, and gender inequality.

Q: What do you mean by sexism and gender inequality?

A: If you’ve never personally experienced gender or sexism inequality, they can be completely invisible.

Wikipedia says:

“Gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals wholly or partly due to their gender. It arises from differences in gender roles.”

So here’s the deal: Our culture is obsessed with gender differentiation. Before a baby is even born, we are consumed by the desire to categorize them based on their genitals (which is super creepy if you think about it), and we wrongly identify both sex and gender on a binary. You get to be just one of the two options, and anyone who doesn’t fit into one of those has to just pick whichever is “closest.”

Interestingly, intersex people are born all the time with a variety of unique reproductive organs and genitals that make it hard for them to check the box of either “boy” or “girl.” These people are often surgically altered at birth to make them fit whichever box is most convenient.

Isn’t that pretty fucked up? Like… we have a binary system and these babies don’t fit in with it, so we cut their bodies until they do. Oh, and in case you think this is a super rare occurrence, it’s not: intesex people are born at about the same rate as redheads.

Ok, so I take issue with the way our culture fetishes sex and gender right out the gate, and forces everyone to choose a binary option, but from there it only gets worse! Due to our obsession with gender, we shove gendered clothing, toys, and treatment on our children.

Our implicit gender biases (aka: biases that are below the level of consciousness) get passed on when we praise little girls for being cute, nice, pretty, and well-behaved, and we praise little boys for being smart, strong, fast, and clever. They get passed on when we buy our girls dolls and our boys trucks. They get passed on when we permit our boys to be aggressive and wild, but shame our girls for the same. They get passed on when we permit our girls to be sensitive and emotional, but shame our boys for the same. They get passed on when we put our little girls in dresses that limit movement and have no pockets, teaching her that her body is for looking at, not for doing stuff.

In short, we socialize our children to see their gender as the most fundamental part of their identity, and we teach them how to appropriately perform their gender so that they fit in with our sexist ideas of what gender should be.

It doesn’t get better from there though.

The perceptions we hold of each gender get stronger throughout a person’s life, and we chalk it all up to biology rather than the way we socialize children since before they’re born.

We perceive men as better at math and driving. We perceive women as better at nurturing and childcare. We see men as smart, and women as social. We assume men are better leaders, and women are better at domestic skills. We take for granted that men love sports and women, while women love shopping and makeup. We unconsciously believe men need to feel like useful providers, while women need to feel beautiful and desirable.

In short, most of us internalize the performance of gender that we got stuck with based on our genitals at birth, and apply it both to ourselves and to everyone else. We know that people who break the rules are severely punished and marginalized. Think: a feminine gay man who spends his entire life being shamed for not being “manly” enough, or the way a woman is slut-shamed and victim-blamed if she tempted a helpless man into assaulting her.

We all have implicit gender biases, and women and non-conforming gender individuals get the short end of the stick. Both men and women view men (especially tall, white, conventionally masculine men) as more trustworthy and competent, for example, so it starts to feel completely natural that they hold more positions of leadership, and make more money, and otherwise rule the world.

When we talk about living in a patriarchy, it simply means that this culture was historically built by men, for men, and most of us still view this as the natural order of things due to implicit gender biases that we keep passing on to our children. The patriarchy determines who is suitable for which job positions, who is believable in a trial, who gets access to bodily autonomy, and whose problems matter most.

Q: But… what about biology?

A: Many people really, really want to believe that men and women are each naturally drawn to all the gender roles and gender performance we shove on them, and they use “biology!” to defend their gender-obsessed actions.

First of all, I certainly recognize that there are some inherent differences between men and women beyond genitals, but it’s very difficult to tell the difference between which is nature and which is nurture when it comes to gender. Socialization is powerful shit, and we don’t have a gender-blind control group to see what would happen. (Trust me, I dream of this world often.)

That said, I feel like… if it’s really biology, then nobody should have a problem with us fighting the gender-based socialization. Because that would mean that even without teaching girls to be sexual objects and people-pleasers, they would become that way anyway! And even without teaching boys to feel entitled to women’s attention and bodies, or to repress all of their feelings except anger, that they would become violent, stoic, and emotionally stunted anyway!

I mean really, if biology is so strong, nothing would change if we stopped shoving gender performances down everyone’s throat. So maybe just let us try?

Most importantly though, using the “biology!” response is very rude, because if biology explained all of our gender biases and performances, then we wouldn’t have a feminism movement because nobody would be bothered by anything. But people are, well… bothered.

It’s kinda like how we used to think women weren’t capable of voting, owning land, having jobs, running a mile, being fulfilled without children, or anything else. They used to cry “biology!” to that shit too, and we’ve slowly proved it allllll wrong. When I hear the biology argument, what I hear is that you simply don’t want things to change because the status quo is working for you.

Q: Why do we need to talk so divisively about gender, why can’t we just focus on coming together as humans?

A: It has to be about gender because it’s already about gender. This question, though usually well-intentioned, would be like asking your doctor: why does my treatment have to be all about cancer? Well… because you have cancer, my friend. It would be silly to treat you as if you didn’t have cancer, just because cancer makes you uncomfortable, right? Yeah. That.

When gender is no longer a divisive issue, we’ll stop treating it like one.

But gender determines how people are treated and perceived, what life chances and opportunities they’ll get, what standards they’ll be held to, and how they’ll be encouraged to view their role and identity.

This isn’t healthy for anyone of any gender, but women and non-gender-conforming individuals are disproportionately negatively impacted by both implicit and explicit biases, discrimination, exploitation, and marginalization.

This is why we fight, my friends.

Whew.

Happy Tuesday.

<3 Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

https://ift.tt/2zMzN36

#{TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

0 notes

ruthellisneda · 6 years

Text

{#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

A man recently found out that I, the completely normal-looking and friendly young woman he had been chatting with, was a feminist.

This must have really shaken him up (I assume he’d never met one of us IRL before), because his next question was:

So you think women should be superior to men?

Naturally my first response was to assume he was kidding and laugh. Because… wut?

Sigh.

But those views are based on nothing more than malevolent gossip; a smear campaign designed to invalidate a movement that causes trouble for people who want to maintain the status quo.

Q: Why do we still need feminism?

A: Because there is still gender inequality. There is still sexism, and discrimination based on gender, sexuality, and gender presentation. There is still exploitation and oppression based on gender.

Q: What is the goal of feminism?

I wish I had more time to tackle the complicated intersectional landscape, but for the purpose of this essay, feminism’s goal is simply to end sexism, gender inequality, and gender bias.

Q: Who is the enemy of feminism?

Q: What do you mean by sexism and gender inequality?

A: If you’ve never personally experienced gender or sexism inequality, they can be completely invisible.

Wikipedia says:

“Gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals wholly or partly due to their gender. It arises from differences in gender roles.”

It doesn’t get better from there though.

The perceptions we hold of each gender get stronger throughout a person’s life, and we chalk it all up to biology rather than the way we socialize children since before they’re born.

Q: But… what about biology?

I mean really, if biology is so strong, nothing would change if we stopped shoving gender performances down everyone’s throat. So maybe just let us try?

Q: Why do we need to talk so divisively about gender, why can’t we just focus on coming together as humans?

When gender is no longer a divisive issue, we’ll stop treating it like one.

This is why we fight, my friends.

Whew.

Happy Tuesday.

<3 Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

https://ift.tt/2zMzN36

#{TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

0 notes

joshuabradleyn · 6 years

Text

{#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

A man recently found out that I, the completely normal-looking and friendly young woman he had been chatting with, was a feminist.

This must have really shaken him up (I assume he’d never met one of us IRL before), because his next question was:

So you think women should be superior to men?

Naturally my first response was to assume he was kidding and laugh. Because… wut?

Sigh.

But those views are based on nothing more than malevolent gossip; a smear campaign designed to invalidate a movement that causes trouble for people who want to maintain the status quo.

Q: Why do we still need feminism?

A: Because there is still gender inequality. There is still sexism, and discrimination based on gender, sexuality, and gender presentation. There is still exploitation and oppression based on gender.

Q: What is the goal of feminism?

I wish I had more time to tackle the complicated intersectional landscape, but for the purpose of this essay, feminism’s goal is simply to end sexism, gender inequality, and gender bias.

Q: Who is the enemy of feminism?

Q: What do you mean by sexism and gender inequality?

A: If you’ve never personally experienced gender or sexism inequality, they can be completely invisible.

Wikipedia says:

“Gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals wholly or partly due to their gender. It arises from differences in gender roles.”

It doesn’t get better from there though.

The perceptions we hold of each gender get stronger throughout a person’s life, and we chalk it all up to biology rather than the way we socialize children since before they’re born.

Q: But… what about biology?

I mean really, if biology is so strong, nothing would change if we stopped shoving gender performances down everyone’s throat. So maybe just let us try?

Q: Why do we need to talk so divisively about gender, why can’t we just focus on coming together as humans?

When gender is no longer a divisive issue, we’ll stop treating it like one.

This is why we fight, my friends.

Whew.

Happy Tuesday.

<3 Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

https://ift.tt/2zMzN36

#{TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

0 notes

neilmillerne · 6 years

Text

{#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

A man recently found out that I, the completely normal-looking and friendly young woman he had been chatting with, was a feminist.

This must have really shaken him up (I assume he’d never met one of us IRL before), because his next question was:

So you think women should be superior to men?

Naturally my first response was to assume he was kidding and laugh. Because… wut?

Sigh.

But those views are based on nothing more than malevolent gossip; a smear campaign designed to invalidate a movement that causes trouble for people who want to maintain the status quo.

Q: Why do we still need feminism?

A: Because there is still gender inequality. There is still sexism, and discrimination based on gender, sexuality, and gender presentation. There is still exploitation and oppression based on gender.

Q: What is the goal of feminism?

I wish I had more time to tackle the complicated intersectional landscape, but for the purpose of this essay, feminism’s goal is simply to end sexism, gender inequality, and gender bias.

Q: Who is the enemy of feminism?

Q: What do you mean by sexism and gender inequality?

A: If you’ve never personally experienced gender or sexism inequality, they can be completely invisible.

Wikipedia says:

“Gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals wholly or partly due to their gender. It arises from differences in gender roles.”

It doesn’t get better from there though.

The perceptions we hold of each gender get stronger throughout a person’s life, and we chalk it all up to biology rather than the way we socialize children since before they’re born.

Q: But… what about biology?

I mean really, if biology is so strong, nothing would change if we stopped shoving gender performances down everyone’s throat. So maybe just let us try?

Q: Why do we need to talk so divisively about gender, why can’t we just focus on coming together as humans?

When gender is no longer a divisive issue, we’ll stop treating it like one.

This is why we fight, my friends.

Whew.

Happy Tuesday.

<3 Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

https://ift.tt/2zMzN36

#{TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

0 notes

almajonesnjna · 6 years

Text

{#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

A man recently found out that I, the completely normal-looking and friendly young woman he had been chatting with, was a feminist.

This must have really shaken him up (I assume he’d never met one of us IRL before), because his next question was:

So you think women should be superior to men?

Naturally my first response was to assume he was kidding and laugh. Because… wut?

Sigh.

But those views are based on nothing more than malevolent gossip; a smear campaign designed to invalidate a movement that causes trouble for people who want to maintain the status quo.

Q: Why do we still need feminism?

A: Because there is still gender inequality. There is still sexism, and discrimination based on gender, sexuality, and gender presentation. There is still exploitation and oppression based on gender.

Q: What is the goal of feminism?

I wish I had more time to tackle the complicated intersectional landscape, but for the purpose of this essay, feminism’s goal is simply to end sexism, gender inequality, and gender bias.

Q: Who is the enemy of feminism?

Q: What do you mean by sexism and gender inequality?

A: If you’ve never personally experienced gender or sexism inequality, they can be completely invisible.

Wikipedia says:

“Gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals wholly or partly due to their gender. It arises from differences in gender roles.”

It doesn’t get better from there though.

The perceptions we hold of each gender get stronger throughout a person’s life, and we chalk it all up to biology rather than the way we socialize children since before they’re born.

Q: But… what about biology?

I mean really, if biology is so strong, nothing would change if we stopped shoving gender performances down everyone’s throat. So maybe just let us try?

Q: Why do we need to talk so divisively about gender, why can’t we just focus on coming together as humans?

When gender is no longer a divisive issue, we’ll stop treating it like one.

This is why we fight, my friends.

Whew.

Happy Tuesday.

<3 Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism? appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

https://ift.tt/2zMzN36

#{TransparentTuesday} Why Do We Still Need Feminism?

0 notes

how2to18 · 6 years

Link

This piece will be appearing in the next issue of the Los Angeles Review of Books Quarterly Journal: Comedy Issue, No. 17

To support the Los Angeles Review of Books and receive the next issue, donate to our fund drive today or become a member.

“Laughs exude from all our mouths.” — Hélène Cixous

“Comedy, you broke my heart.” — Lindy West

IN A BIT about sexual violence in his 2010 concert film Hilarious (recorded in 2009), the now-infamous Louis C.K. says: “I’m not condoning rape, obviously — you should never rape anyone. Unless you have a reason, like if you want to fuck somebody and they won’t let you.” I was delighted when I first encountered this joke on Jezebel in July 2012 in a post called “How to Make a Rape Joke.” Lindy West was responding to the social media controversy surrounding American comedian Daniel Tosh, who had recently taunted a female heckler with gang rape. West’s insightful essay later led to a 2013 TV debate with comedian Jim Norton as well as her best-selling memoir, Shrill: Notes from a Loud Woman, where she describes the fallout of becoming one of the United States’s best-known feminist comedy commentators, including her subsequent, painful decision to stop going to comedy shows.

In “How to Make a Rape Joke,” West wondered whether it is ever okay to approach sexual violence with humor. She wrote that she understood and respected those, like the woman who called out Tosh, for whom it wasn’t, categorically. The sexual assault of women poses a special problem for comedy, she reasoned, because it is an expression of structural discrimination against women. That is, unlike misfortunes such as cancer and dead babies known to befall people at random, if you’re a woman, not only do you face a one in three chance of becoming a target of sexual violence, but you will also likely be held at least partly responsible for it. To illustrate the inappropriateness of jokes about this kind of a situation, she drew a comic analogy between patriarchal society and a place where people are regularly mangled by defective threshing machines and then blamed for their own deaths: “If you care […] about humans not getting threshed to death, then wouldn’t you rather just stick with, I don’t know, your new material on barley chaff (hey, learn to drive, barley chaff!)?” Compassion about a culturally loaded form of suffering would seem, automatically and intuitively, to preclude humor about it. Yet West’s own humorous reframing demonstrated what she ultimately decided: that you could be funny about sexual violence if you “DO NOT MAKE RAPE VICTIMS THE BUTT OF THE JOKE.” In particular, Louis C.K.’s rape joke then earned West’s stamp of approval because, in her words:

[It] is making fun of rapists — specifically the absurd and horrific sense of entitlement that accompanies taking over someone else’s body like you’re hungry and it’s a delicious hoagie. The point is, only a fucking psychopath would think like that, and the simplicity of the joke lays that bare.

Though her recent New York Times piece “Why Men Aren’t Funny” makes it clear that West now regards her defense of Louis C.K. as a relic, her sharp distinction between acceptable and unacceptable jokes in “How to Make a Rape Joke” set the standard for mainstream feminist discussions of comedy for a good five years.

While I find West compelling, in my own efforts to navigate the contemporary feminist ethics of humor throughout this period, I’ve been resisting the impulse to draw limits. Instead, I’ve been looking back to the debates over sexuality that were central to North American feminism in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During the so-called sex wars, feminists agreed that sexuality had always been held in a patriarchal stranglehold but disagreed about what to do about it. The Women Against Pornography saw explicit sexual representations as the very basest mechanisms of female sexual oppression and so focused their energy on educating the public about their harms and prosecuting pornographers. By contrast, sex-positive feminists, as they came to be known, claimed that trying to shut down or cordon off unacceptable expressions of sexuality only exacerbated the problem. They argued that the history of criminalization and widespread fear of any sex but the reproductive, romantic, married kind had not only led to the marginalization of sex workers, lesbians, gay men, trans people, and many other so-called sexual deviants, but also cast sexuality as such into the shadows. Targeting pornography was therefore counterproductive. As Susie Bright, vocal defender of the sex-positivity movement and founder of the first women-run erotic magazine, put it:

porn [can be] sexist. So are all commercial media. [Singling out porn for criticism is] like tasting several glasses of salt water and insisting only one of them is salty. The difference with porn is that it is people fucking, and we live in a world that cannot tolerate that image in public.

Sex-positive feminists actively chose not to contribute to this climate of moral panic, focusing instead on unearthing the deeply embedded mainstream prejudices around sexual practices and fantasies. Instead of turning away, they faced sexuality head on, acknowledging debts to the small minority of people — sexologists, fetishists, queers, sex workers, erotic performers, and indeed pornographers — who had already begun exploring human sexuality in all its complexity, often with little socioeconomic support and at the risk of criminal charges. By many accounts, it was this unabashed approach to sex that led to the development and popularization of safe-sex protocols and consent education later in the 1980s.

There are of course, limits to the comparison of sex and humor, especially given that the impact of hetero-patriarchy on sex is much more immediately visible. Nevertheless, I would suggest that sexuality and humor are not merely analogous, but are in fact overlapping categories of feminist experience. Both are understood to be culturally coded but with powerful bases in the body. Like sex, laughter has historically been considered an unruly instinct, even by the very philosophers who have most rigorously examined it. As scholars like Anca Parvulescu, John Morreall, and Linda Mizejewski have variously shown, the stigma of humor, like that of sex, has been intricately interwoven with its designation as an irrational impulse and with gendered and racialized notions of embodiment. Moreover, there is a shared double standard regarding both laughter and sex: both have been imagined, paradoxically, as things that men have to cajole “respectable” (implicitly white, cisgendered, pretty, heterosexual) women to do and, at the same time, as things that transgressive women instinctively want to do, in excess. The dangers of both sex and humor have been encapsulated in the figure of a woman open-mouthed and out of control. In the early ’80s, the influential sexuality scholar Gayle Rubin observed that the most common symptom of our culture’s general fear of sex, or “sex negativity” as she called it, is the very impulse “to draw and maintain an imaginary line between good and bad sex.” That is, while various mainstream discourses of sex differ from one another in terms of the value systems they deploy and their level of overt misogyny, their views of sex are, ultimately, remarkably uniform: “Most of the discourses on sex, be they religious, psychiatric, popular, or political, delimit a very small portion of human sexual capacity as sanctifiable, safe, healthy, mature, legal, or politically correct” and, once the lines are drawn, “[o]nly sex acts on the good side […] are accorded moral complexity.” Wary of simply rerouting sexual shame, sex-positive feminists instead actively cultivated a nonjudgmental stance.

This might seem the worst possible moment to advocate for an equivalent form of humor positivity, let alone with reference to a joke about sexual violence by Louis C.K. In the wake of the public exposure of numerous celebrity serial sexual abusers such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, the viral #MeToo campaign has uncovered thousands of male harassers and abusers, and pointed to millions of others as yet unnamed. Since C.K. confirmed reports of his nonconsensual exhibitionism, some of the feminist anger and despair that was already rippling across popular and social media is being directed specifically at the industry that gave him his power. Many mainstream feminists, not least West herself, feel more prepared now than ever to throw the bathwater of comedy out along with the many baby-men who have been cavorting in it. Yet, as I see it, it is precisely in the context of our well-justified outrage that humor positivity is most needed. Humor is a vital, elusive, and continually evolving aspect of human experience. Like sex, it has repeatedly served oppressive ends, but it is no more essentially or necessarily discriminatory an impulse than sexuality is. It is undoubtedly important that we probe and resist the misogynist culture of mainstream comedy. At the same time I propose a change in the way we personally and collectively engage with the material this industry trades in — that is, the jokes themselves.

How might we ensure compatibility between the jokes we hear or make and the tools and concepts that shape our responses? How can we prevent our resistance to certain jokes from reproducing the (historically patriarchal) marginalization and stigmatization of the desire to laugh? If we get used to approaching jokes with trepidation, expecting offense, how might that wariness affect our political movements? In the current feminist conversation, these questions have begun to be raised in, for instance, Cynthia Willett, Julie Willett, and Yael D. Sherman’s “The Seriously Erotic Politics of Feminist Laughter,” Jack Halberstam’s “You Are Triggering me! The Neo-Liberal Rhetoric of Harm, Danger and Trauma,” Lauren Berlant and Sianne Ngai’s “Comedy Has Issues,” and Berlant’s “The Predator and the Jokester.” My sense is that what we especially need now are some clear and concrete principles and practices for humor-positive feminism. Here are three lines of inquiry that I hope may help us to develop a richer set of responses to comedy going forward.

Can we develop a more complex and flexible view of humor’s power dynamics?

One of the major contributions of sex-positive feminism to our current understanding of sexuality was the recognition of seemingly counterintuitive forms of agency from below. Sex-positive feminists showed us the through line between the patriarchal suspicion of sexuality and certain feminist critiques of sexual exploitation. Though the fear of sex was originally and widely promulgated in medical, religious, and legal discourses, some of the alternative schemas of anti-porn feminists heightened the idea that most sex is inherently terrifying. For instance, Catharine MacKinnon’s view that “the social relation between the sexes is organized so that men may dominate and women must submit and this relation is sexual — in fact, is sex” — while it helpfully exposes sexual violence as a structural problem — also makes it impossible to distinguish consensual heterosexuality from rape. Sex-positive feminists turned to the less moralistic disciplinary frameworks of sexology, sociology, and anthropology. Inspired in part by the subversive theories of power of French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault, they insisted that saying yes or no to sexual contact, including sexual domination, was a fundamental form of sexual participation. Moreover, they saw that the patterns of giving, taking, and sharing power through sex are much more various and unpredictable than — and sometimes run counter to — the arrangements delimited by basic socioeconomic and patriarchal paradigms.

A first step for developing a similarly nuanced take on the power relations entailed in humor could be examining and loosening up our often-unconscious obsession with the cruelty of laughter. In the philosophy of humor there are at least three ways of characterizing laughter, which can help to parse the differences between various jokes, as well as modes of delivery and reception. Today humor philosophers are most convinced by the idea, first fully elaborated in the 18th century, that laughter is a response to incongruity: something familiar suddenly looks strange, and the resulting sense of surprise pleases us. Another branch of humor theory draws on psychoanalytic notions of the unconscious. Relief theorists, most famously Freud, have emphasized the way that jokes, like dreams, trick us into considering ideas that we normally repress: laughter specifically manifests the giddiness of released inhibitions. These two modern theories of humor are largely compatible. Amusement does not necessarily degrade its objects but may imaginatively reframe or transform them, circulating power between tellers, laughers, and their objects in any number of ways.

The oldest and still most popular notion of humor, however, is one that presupposes and depends on hierarchical and unidirectional power relations. Superiority theory perceives laughter as the expression of unexpected pleasure at discovering our own excellence relative to the things we laugh at. In Thomas Hobbes’s famous formulation, “Laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others.” Superiority theory initially emerged alongside and is consistent with explicitly elitist political ideologies. It may be the only theory of humor children instinctively grasp: even at an early age, the phrase “That’s not funny!” is understood to mean not what it literally implies — “What you’ve said is not amusing to me and could never amuse anyone” — but rather “That hurts my feelings.” For kids, joking about the wrong thing is an ethical violation; it simply moots the possibility of laughing. These days, distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable jokes seem to put a modern, grown-up face on superiority theory. But jokes labeled as “offensive” or “inappropriate” are determined to be “not funny” in more or less the same way that kids mean it. The tropes that oppose “punching up” to “punching down,” coined in the early 1990s by the feminist satirist Molly Ivins, have been crucial in the popularization and liberalization of superiority theory. Those phrases also put a deceptively simple spatial spin on the relative socioeconomic power of laughers and objects. Reinforcing a David and Goliath moral code, the tropes imply that jokes are crucially aggressive in form, but that in some cases violence is justified. It’s okay — heroic even — to take on a bigger meaner guy, but undoubtedly a bad thing to pick on someone littler and weaker than you.

Of course, jokes can be hurtful, sometimes intentionally so. However, taking cues from sex-positive feminists, we might want to stop simply assuming that they are. Just as consensual sexual relations of domination and submission may look like abuse to those who don’t understand the rules, so might some apparently mean jokes. Think of insult comedy or a roast, where the target welcomes the jokes that really sting. But the larger and more important point is that, more than any other factor, our theories of humor will determine our perception of any joke and of the social and political arenas in which they are being made. Keeping our minds open to the possibility that surprise or relief rather than aggression may be the primary affect or intention will better equip us to see the various, potentially contradictory, facets of any comic provocation. Mainstream feminist critics have specific reasons for rejecting jokes about sexual violence: for some survivors suffering from post-traumatic stress, the power dynamics of humor and of assault can sometimes feel so painfully intertwined that certain jokes are experienced as violations akin to the initial trauma. Yet it is precisely because the very perception of aggression can recharge past suffering that it seems important to remember humor’s other impulses. Recently, artists like Emma Cooper, Heather Jordan Ross, Adrienne Truscott, and Vanessa Place are turning to humor expressly in an effort to destigmatize the experiences of sexual assault survivors and change the tone of our conversation. How might a more general focus on humor as incongruity or relief also help to reduce the frequency or intensity of fight-or-flight responses and open up new aesthetic, therapeutic, and political prospects?

Can we develop a more thoroughgoing and flexible view of the rhetorical and performative aspects of humor?

In recent years, I’ve often been surprised to hear irony or ambiguity denounced in feminist humor criticism, as though it would be possible, if people would just say what they really mean, to be assured of a perfectly direct transmission of ideas or a fully inclusive joke. For example, in her study of the dangers of rape jokes, Lara Cox reiterates the superiority theory view that the pleasure of irony depends on “the idea that there is someone out there who won’t ‘get’ the nonliteral nature of the utterance” — and these dupes are “the joke’s ‘butts’ or ‘targets.’” In his study of race humor, Simon Weaver distinguishes between polysemous jokes, which inadvertently reinforce racism, and clear jokes, whose antiracist message cannot be mistaken. I worry that such arguments seem to disavow the fundamental slipperiness of language. Contributing in their own way to North American sex positivity, Frenchpoststructuralist feminists such as Julia Kristeva and Hélène Cixous underscored that words have never been equipped for transparent representation. While many jokes do depend on linguistic play, comedians are not responsible for the essential arbitrariness of their medium. Words will always interact and impinge on one another; signification will always be subjectively, historically, and politically inflected, by both speakers and listeners, in myriad ways. Reminding ourselves of the basic wildness of language — and the range of meanings and identities that this wildness makes imaginable, especially in jokes — can temper our anxiety about the inevitability of misinterpretation.

At the same time, let’s attend more carefully to the theatricality of humor, including the jokes and quips that bubble up spontaneously as part of ordinary conversation. In particular, stand-up comedians are in character even when they speak as themselves, and many comedians regularly adopt multiple personas, some of whom channel views that they find especially awful or absurd. Very often these views are already in the air, and the comedian, by giving voice to popular perceptions, hopes to draw fresh attention to them. Moreover, comedians tend not to put on and take off these various personas like so many hats, but rather to alternate and layer them, turning some up and others down, as if each one was a different translucent projection on a dimmer switch. These uneven amplifications of characterization actually generate the dialogic structure of comic performance, as stand-up scholar Ian Brodie explains: “The audience is expected to try to determine what is true [that is, closest to what the comedian generally thinks] and what is play. The comedian[’s] […] aim is […] to deliver whatever will pay off with laughter.” Staying conscious of these shifts will help us to recognize that the most challenging moments — those moments when we don’t know quite where to locate a comedian’s values and commitments — are not incidental but central to the interpersonal dynamics of stand-up comedy.

How can we expand our theories of laughter’s social conditions and effects?

Our most definitive and intense experiences of laughter tend to be in groups of three or more. For most of us, sex and humor are different in this respect. And humor theorists have written very engagingly about the feelings of communion potentially generated through laughter. Ted Cohen writes, for example, that laughing together “is the satisfaction of a deep human longing, the realization of a desperate hope. It is the hope that we are enough like one another to sense one another, to be able to live together.” However, as Robert Provine and others argue, we have so much more to learn about humor’s social aspirations, from the vantage of evolutionary biology, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and many other disciplines besides. Feminists will have a lot to contribute to this inquiry, not least because we know to be skeptical of any account of collective social experience that neglects to factor in the uneven distribution of socioeconomic resources and respect and because we are acutely aware of the likelihood of exclusion and humiliation within any diverse group, and the likelihood that these bad feelings will remain invisible to the most entitled people in the room.

As we help to flesh out our understanding of the social benefits and costs of humor, however, I hope we will get better at waiting for the initial wash of feeling to pass before assigning political positions and moral values to jokes, their tellers, and our own and others’ responses. Drawing on the insights of cultural studies, some pro-porn feminists have recently been exploring the consumers’ prerogative in shaping their reception of any sexual representation, regardless of its intended public. In an essay called “Queer Feminist Pigs: A Spectator’s Manifesta,” Jane Ward contemplates her taste for mainstream porn and proposes that,

We need […] a means of “queering” porn that doesn’t rely on filmmakers to deliver to us imagery already stamped with the queer seal of approval, and that doesn’t automatically equate queer viewers with queer viewing. […] Can we watch sexist porn and still have feminist orgasms?

Many of the most successful comedians purposely write material that can reach very different audiences. What if we were to recognize that as listeners or consumers of jokes we have a comparable level of freedom in determining a joke’s meaning, of finding a place from which the joke can be funny to us? Adapting Ward’s question, we might consider: “Can we have a feminist laugh at a discriminatory joke?” Especially given the current state of US and world politics, some humor researchers have been perturbed to discover that certain satires appeal to both progressive and conservative viewers alike. But if humor, like sex, can make strange bedfellows, that capacity to bring people together may be something not — or not only — to fear, but also something to maximize strategically and even celebrate. Even when we’re laughing for different reasons, couldn’t the fact that we’re doing so across too-familiar divides be invigorating in unpredictable ways?

To consider how humor-positive feminism might differ from the censuring approach that is dominant now, let’s return to C.K.’s 2009 joke. It starts with a basic prohibition — “I’m not condoning rape, obviously — you should never rape anyone” — then follows with a rationalization of nonconsensual sex that completely overrides that prohibition: “Unless you have a reason, like if you want to fuck somebody and they won’t let you.” The statements contradict one another and the speaker’s casual diction suggests that he has made a habit of justifying acts of criminal violence. In 2012, West’s superiority theory of humor dictated that her central critical task was to work out who was most hurt by this crazy illogic and determine whether or not that hurt was deserved. She implicitly centered the shift in C.K.’s delivery from one statement to the next, reading these lines as a joke that mocked the perpetrator-persona’s twisted thinking. Feminists had permission to laugh, and in fact wanted to laugh, she argued then, because we felt confident that all of us, including C.K. himself, were not just much nicer but also much smarter than the asshole he was briefly inhabiting on stage. However, C.K.’s recent confirmed sexual misconduct has thoroughly destroyed this version of the joke by eroding the distinction between C.K.’s own voice and that of his perpetrator-persona. As playful distance has given way to painful alignment, the liberal superiority theory must seek a new target. From this vantage, the 2009 joke — insofar as it can still be construed as an utterance capable of eliciting laughter — has to be recognized for what it actually always was: a trivialization of rape.

When West was writing “How to Make a Rape Joke” in 2012, C.K. was appreciated by feminists for regularly raising difficult questions about white heterosexual male privilege. This status provided an important touchstone for West’s feeling that his rape joke, unlike many others, was critical of rape culture: “Louis CK has spent 20 years making it very publicly clear that he is on the side of making things better.” Already by the time she was writing her memoir, however, West had stopped actively defending this joke — “I should have been harder on Louis CK, whom I basically let off on a technicality.” In recent weeks, C.K. has been made a symbol of one of the most insidiously misogynist formal features of confessional stand-up comedy: the way the whole audience is made to share in the comedian’s personal shame. According to this revised binary feminist view, everyone who ever laughed at this joke bears some responsibility for pain it may have caused to assault survivors and for contributing to rape culture.

But is it necessary — or advisable — to turn against our desire to laugh, even as we shift our attention away from C.K. himself? A humor-positive feminist frame invites us to remember the other laughs that we have lost now that C.K. and his perpetrator-persona are not fully distinguishable. We can see that it was previously available as a relief joke that provocatively illustrated the kind of exceptionalism to which we are all capable of falling prey. And as an explicitly anti-sexist incongruity joke, about the tendency of oft-repeated prohibitions to become empty slogans, especially where endemic, shame-inducing patterns of sexual violence are concerned. Paradoxically, though C.K.’s long history of abuse has destroyed his credibility as a critic of the ineffectiveness of liberal platitudes, it also proves the urgent necessity of the kind of critique he was trying to offer.

In December 2017, as I write this, a humor-positive frame also allows us to turn C.K.’s lines into a dark feminist superiority joke that, instead of stressing our own pain and disappointment, capitalizes on the situational irony here. This once-celebrated self-exposer has been exposed as yet another man with a consent problem. That is, since his accusers bravely went public and Louis C.K. affirmed their reports, the coyness of the original lines may be unraveled through a revenge joke: like a deranged wooden puppet, the comedian punches up at himself much harder than he intends. Feminist humorist Jill Gutowitz effectively put this metajoke into circulation when she posted links to C.K. telling a variety of rape jokes over the years, including the one discussed here, below the Tweet: “Surprised about Louis CK? Here’s every time he told us, to our faces, that he was a creep.” Because righteousness isn’t my favorite flavor, I don’t find this new version of the joke as funny as the one I thought that C.K. was telling in 2009. But I do like knowing that it’s going around.

Danielle Bobker is associate professor in the English Department at Concordia University in Montreal, where she is also co-organizer of a working group on Feminism and Controversial Humor.

The post Toward a Humor-Positive Feminism: Lessons from the Sex Wars appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books http://ift.tt/2ByUf7k via IFTTT

#Blogger

0 notes

2017mdia4120-blog · 7 years

Text

Kimberly Reynolds- Week 5 Assignment- without pictures because Tumblr isn’t allowing me to post with my pictures

1. The author is aiming to reframe and challenge the majority thought and consensus among researchers and citizens alike about the interpretation of selfies. The author contends that from major thought leaders and researchers to newspapers from The New York Times have perpetuated a narrative of the selfie that characterizes the practice as narcissistic, superficial, and reflective of thoughtlessness and triviality. This often comes at the expense of women as women are most often the gender who shares selfies. The author doesn’t delve into gender politics or discussion as to why the act of sharing photos of appearance are most permissible for women, but she does use the empirical data from major newspapers to contend that as selfies are continually linked to narcissism and superficiality, women continue to be attributed with such characteristics.

The author believes this is not only unjust, but overlooking the immense political implications of the selfie in the context of feminism. In a world that is becoming more and more image and video dominated, selfies should be taken seriously. Some women are actively working to reclaim their image for themselves (refuting the male gaze) and dismantle beauty standards. And even without intentional or individual politics, when read with feminist politics in mind, the massive presence and abundance of selfies from females can be interpreted as agency and celebration of self.

The author then cites several essays written by other female authors that discuss selfies as tools used toxically by young women with low self esteem. The author believes this kind of image is just another social scapegoat that relives the anxiety of the practice. For example, the author cites that just as Black women have been singularly blamed for parasitism on the welfare system, white women serve as the social scapegoat for a practice that has subsequently been deemed as trivial- therefore relieving everyone other demographic from triviality because at least they are not the trivial white girl. While I agree with the author’s argument of ideological scapegoating, I do not agree with her equated examples because she lacks intersectional nuance. Black women have been and continue to be treated with incredible hostility and hate and while it is true both genders have suffered social scapegoating, Black women have and continue to bear much more discrimination from far more systems outside of newspapers and researchers and it often results in more complex oppression and violence. I think intersectionality could be expressed in a more nuanced way in this example.

2. I don’t believe the author convincingly or justly describes the selfie in a post-feminist perspective. The author demonstrates knowledge about feminism and the intricacies of and politics of vocabulary, but then decided against employing this knowledge. I was intrigued and assuaged with the intent of using post feminism as a “space-clearing” gesture, however, she then began to use condemning language that was void of the ideas of feminist reclaiming or even the basic notion of freedom of choice. This is exemplified by the sentence, “The production of the self takes center stage, but also a contradictory mix of vulgarity and radicalism; one where a young girl will post a sexually provocative self-portrait and then defiantly follow-up with an impassioned written diatribe about rape and the abuses of women”. The choice of dictation in the word vulgar demonstrates the lack of understanding of feminism- women have been and continue to be scrutinized for expressing sexual agency by their own definitions. Therefore, if advocating for a feminist understanding of the selfie, one would understand that vulgarity is a hetero-patriarchal condemnation that silences and shames women for using, having, or expressing their bodies. Secondly, the author then again scorns women as she sets up sexual agency as mutually exclusive from criticism about sexual assault. The author is suggesting that once a woman posts a “vulgar” or nude photo, she is then invalid in discussing rape or sexual assault. This again drastically and dangerously overlooks the principles of feminisms by continually putting women in a double bind. By stating that young women on Tumblr and sites similar “enthusiastically perform patriarchal stereotypes of sexual servility in the name of empowerment”, the author again picks the more problematic interpretation to illustrate her point. While I don’t disagree with the notion that patriarchy works itself into reclaiming ideas or still dominants popular conception, I think there is room to read these selfies as reclaiming of the stereotypes entirely, especially for queer women who do not post with an imaged male audience in mind. Rather than criticizing women for expressing their sexuality wrong, perhaps we can delve into a larger critique of social systems or the perpetuation of patriarchy through male owned fashion magazines or media corporations or ad agencies. The criticism should not be singularly on the young women who fail to completely eradicate patriarchy from their understanding at age 14, but should instead be focused on how patriarchy fragments are found in selfies and what in fact causes that and focus on that dismantling work.The author again delegitimizes young women and their developing sense of self and reclaiming in saying, “To image what for many may be perceived as the intimacy of personal hygiene is an act of willful defiance and a means to claim agency – despite the fact that one’s distaste for images of blood may arguably stem from an array of other issues.” The author also contends that the selfie phenomenon is non discriminatory (contradictory to her earlier assertion about social scapegoating), but then proceeds to name three “heroes” of the movement, two of whom are white, and with the third looking to be of Asian decent. In total, however, this is absent of Black women, as noted before, a brutalized demographic that deserves prioritization. Lastly, while both “post” visual art movements connote a diversion from pigeon hole labels, not from the social context and politics, this is poorly equated to post –feminism. The author fails to examine selfies from a less gendered perspective and instead harshly criticizes women for what she perceives as acting out heterosexual patriarchal stereotypes in a time that is considered to be the most progressive for women in the United States. From my understanding, post-feminism focuses more on the language used to discuss feminism and the oppression of gender. It navigates a modern world where sexism is less blatant but just as insidious. These are different mediums whose general overarching philosophies could be compared, but the execution of the goals and populations require much more complex understanding. Again, race and gender are both oppressive systems, yet they have separate and different social repercussions and therefore separate means of dismantling that cannot be generalized or lumped together. The author fails to understand the false equivalent of racial politics and gender politics.

Strength: Therefore, in a best case scenario interpretation of post-feminism, my image Lorna Simpson’s “Five Day Forecast” because she uses identity politics to discussion intersectionality

Weakness: A negative interpretation is an Amber Rose selfie- I think the author’s definition of post-feminism, which again is hyper focused on gender and no intersectional concerns of race, class, or sexuality, would condemn Amber Rose for acting upon the male gaze. I think I more align with what was said at the beginning of her discussion- perhaps is women weren’t completely and regularly objectified, then perhaps such system wouldn’t produce phenomenon and commodification of female images.

3. The author distinguishes from self portrait and selfies by measuring and evaluating intimacy. The author cites Francesca Romeo’s work as revelatory in terms of creating images that are construction of self, but communicate different meanings. In self-portraits, the image and message are constructed in a way that intimate and public and artistic on a larger social scale. It is to be interpreted and evaluated in a more intentional manner. Their impact is meant to be a larger impact than that of selfie. A selfie is also intimate and artistic, but the closeness of the medium, both for the artist and the viewer, creates a different level of directness. The selfie can also be more casual as other people can be in the selfie or is used in a documentary style.

0 notes