Protip for the use of the word cunt: if you don’t have one,
the most handsome dorothy ever.(via acidarmor)
I'm a fat brown cis male queer, humorless feminist, tender queer, late 20's college student. This is a blog about people of color solidarity, queer separatism, body positivity, dismantling the white supremacist capitalist cisheteropatriarchy and general insurrection. This blog is a manifestation of my fat, brown, queer rage.
I also run the body positive blogs fuckyeahchubbyguysofcolor and fatnudes, if you're into that sort of thing.
TW on the image for violent misogyny, homophobia
Basically, every MRA ever.
goddamnit why is the asshole mra’s name blocked out…
he should be publicly fucking shamed.
notice how this fucker comes in sly, “polite”, and “i am holier that thou” attitude and the moment you reject that idea that they are victims soley because of their gender they become an outwardly violently misogynistic shit that has no clue what they are even saying.
Feminists have always been accused of hating men because it is a very effective way of silencing a very threatening movement. In a society where women’s value is based on our ability to please men, and where men hold almost all the cards, the worst possible thing we can do is hate them. So when feminists point out and object to the oppression, abuse and discrimination perpetuated by men against women, this is framed as man hating in an attempt to silence us, in an attempt to ensure that we are vilified and ignored by the rest of society, so that male oppression of women and male privilege can continue unchecked.
No matter how we frame our arguments and no matter what kind of image we seek to project, as long as we highlight, object to and fight misogyny, feminists are going to be called man haters.
So I’m not going to waste my time trying to prove that I’m not."
No Justice When Women Fight Back
Friday, 31 August 2012 00:00 By Victoria Law, Truthout | News Analysis
What do a nineteen-year-old lesbian from New Jersey, a 23-year-old trans woman in Minneapolis and a 31-year-old mother in Florida have in common? All three were attacked, all three fought back and all three were arrested. All three are currently in prison while their attackers remain free. Oh, yes, and all three are black women.
"Then there’s gender attribution, whereby we look at somebody and say, “that’s a man,” or “that’s a woman.” And this is important because the way we percieve another’s gender affects the way we relate to that person. Gender attribution is the sneaky one. It’s the one we do all the time without thinking about it; kinda like driving a sixteen-wheeler down a crowded highway… without thinking about it.
In this culture, gender attribution, like gender assignment, is phallo-centric. That is, one is male until perceived otherwise. According to a study by Kessler and McKenna, one can extrapolate that it would take the presence of roughly four female cues to outweigh the presence of one male cue: one is assumed male until proven otherwise. That’s one reason why many women today get “sirred” whereas very few men get called “ma’am."
Kate Bornstein, Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of US
on the character of Black Widow and misogyny
When the movie still wasn’t out in theaters, there were a lot of people complaining how Natasha was just going to be “the token girl” and how “useless” she’s going to be and how she’ll just be eyecandy for the male users while the Main Dudes save the day.
Now, the movie’s out and a lot of people were convinced that she was a great asset to the team. Her character was well-written, fleshed out and had depth. She was badass and confident but at the same time, she felt like a real human; she has things that affect her and is obviously troubled by them but she hides that well. She has her strengths and weaknesses. Well done, Joss!
But at the same time people are still going on about how she shouldn’t have been included, how the movie would’ve been better without her and actively leave her out when talking about the movie. They only talk about her boobs or ass or how hot she was, completely stripping her of any other features except the token eye-candy. I honestly cannot explain it to myself in any other way: society has taught us that women are useless, weak, only exist so that guys can have something to look at and exploit, have no distinct characteristics and should let men save them.
Take a look at Hawkeye, for example - he spent most of the movie being possessed by Loki and afterwards had some snarky lines to deliver. Yet people are creaming their pants over him; how awesome he is, etc. Men aren’t prejudiced against, people always like male characters without much thought. But when it comes to women, people always judge first. Is she too weak? Too strong? Too unfeeling? Too feeling? Society has set these impossibly high standards for us to upholds but truth is: we, as women, will never be able to reach them.
In the same vein, Scarlett Johansson has been asked mainly about her tight suit, interview after interview; not about what her character is like or how it’s been developed, no no, she’s a woman who’s wearing a very tight catsuit and obviously that’s her main point. Captain America and Hawkeye also wear very tight suits but they’re rarely asked about them; Thor and Hawkeye show more skin than Natasha does, yet she’s regarded as the “sex object” because her zip is a little unbuttoned and hey guess what! She has boobs!
It’s 2012, the 21st century and misogyny is still rampant; sure, there’s some progress but it’s painstakingly slow. Black Widow is the only (non-powered!) female superhero in a team full of superpowered guys and she still holds her ground. Yet people are ready to hate on her immediately. Because she’s a woman and what is a woman doing in a superhero movie? Don’t you know superheroes are for guys only?
"Males as a group have and do benefit the most from patriarchy, from the assumption that they are superior to females and should rule over us. But those benefits have come with a price. In return for all the goodies men receive from patriarchy, they are required to dominate women, to exploit and oppress us, using violence if they must to keep patriarchy intact. Most men find it difficult to be patriarchs. Most men are disturbed by hatred and fear of women, by male violence against women, even the men who perpetuate this violence. But they fear letting go of the benefits. They are not certain what will happen to the world they know mos t intimately i f patriarchy changes. So they find it easier to passively support male domination even when they know in their minds and hearts that it is wrong."
bell hooks, Feminism is for Everybody (via poeticallyspeaking13)
"I have a healthy range of fetishes, one of which is so unusual that I’ve never met anyone in ‘real life’ who shares it. Growing up with that sort of ‘dirty secret’ can be a lonely experience; but finding a whole sub-community of dedicated porn-makers who not only shared my kink, but actively celebrated it and acted out the same fantasies, helped me to realize I wasn’t some twisted freak. At least not for that reason. If porn can help kids realize that their urges are natural and healthy, that’s not a bad thing in my book.
The diversity of adult entertainment is so great that just talking about ‘porn’ as if it’s one big pink throbbing homogeneous mass is profoundly ignorant, whether its the subject of a campaign or a research question. For example, a paper by Michael Flood suggests “exposure to pornography helps to sustain young people’s adherence to sexist and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships,” but would we see the same impact from Maggie Mayhem’s feminist porn that we would from Playboy?
Lumping the two together is like trying to ask, “do video games make people violent,” without bothering to differentiate between the Grand Theft Auto series and Pacman. It undermines research, but more seriously it can lead people to tackle the wrong problem. It could well be true, for example, that the majority of porn reinforces misogynistic attitudes, and that this could damage young children as a result; but if that’s the case then the problem is misogyny, not pornography, and it needs to be tackled wherever it appears, not just in the adult entertainment industry."
With that Die Cis Scum post where I talked about cis people being the beneficiaries of violence against trans people, people got confused about what violence means, so I think I should clarify:
Violence is more than just assault. Political violence exists in institutional discrimination. People being denied housing, a source of income, medical care, etc, that’s all violence. With that in mind, when trans people are ostracized from adequate employment (and this happens mainly with trans people of color because all of these institutions bud from white supremacist power structures), it creates a space exclusive for cis people, with less competition. In short, you have a better opportunity to get this job because all of the trans people have been barred from a fair chance at getting it, you benefit from that.
Also, this is why the statement that trans women have male privilege is utterly laughable. First, citing supposed microaggressive habits (like ‘splaining) as proof that we have privilege is to fundamentally misunderstand how oppression works. Microaggression does not imply privilege, and it does not reinforce oppression unless there is actually oppression happening.
For trans women to benefit from male privilege, two things would have to be true:
- Oppressive violence that is done against women would need to exempt trans women, i.e., would need to specifically target cis women. Considering that blending in as cis is necessary for trans women’s safety, and when we are revealed as trans shit like this happens (more to TWoC than to white trans women, but we’re not immune), I think we can say this is ridiculous.
- This violence must be done to uplift trans women’s status in society. Immunity from violence, without this, is just passing privilege. For violence against cis women to be done to uplift trans women, the conspiracy theory that the patriarchy seeks to replace cis women with us would have to be true.
Considering that (when we’re outed) patriarchy sees us as inferior knock-offs of womanhood (again, from where a trans woman stands, there’s no daylight between radfems and patriarchy; they think the same thing), we can pretty clearly say that patriarchy isn’t trying to uplift us. That, and the whole thing that we’re targeted by it and you can’t be uplifted by things that are targeted at you.
Male-identified allies SHOULD BE:
- Assisting feminist leaders.
- Supporting feminism and standing up for women in contentious, hostile spaces. (Not speaking for them - standing up for them.)
- Listening more than speaking.
- Asking, “How can I help?”
- If in a role as a candidate for a graduate degree in gender studies, or a professor in W&GS, centering women in discussions - always, always, always - and going out of your way to include women speakers.
Male-identified allies SHOULDN’T BE:
- Acting as feminist leaders.
- Speaking over women in contentious, hostile spaces, if not asked or requested to do so.
- Speaking more than listening.
- Asking, “But why don’t you accept me?” with the insinuation that support is conditional on being coddled.
- If a candidate for a graduate degree in gender studies, or a professor in W&GS, centering every conversation on you and your penis, and what ~* other dudes *~ think about feminism. Being sure to talk over women at every turn, and focus class discussions on jizz facials.
In response to this, and the ensuing controversy.
When the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject, it trivializes misogyny.
When the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject, it conveys the message that whatever men want to talk about is more important than misogyny.
When the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject to something that’s about them, it conveys the message that men are the ones who really matter, and that any harm done to men is always more important than misogyny.
And when the topic of misogyny comes up, and men change the subject, it comes across as excusing misogyny. It doesn’t matter how many times you say, “Yes, of course, misogyny is terrible.” When you follow that with a “Yes, but…”, it comes across as an excuse. In many cases, it is an excuse. And it contributes to a culture that makes excuses for misogyny."
Gay men are not hated because of how they fuck.
Gay men are hated because they are perceived to be effeminate; no matter how “macho” you are, the mainstream equates being gay with lowering oneself to the inferior status of a woman.
Your misogyny—your hatred of women, trans folks, and femme men—is oppressing your community and yourself.
"People wonder why women don’t “fight back,” but they don’t wonder about it when women back down in arguments, are interrupted, purposefully lower and modulate their voices to express less emotion, […] They don’t wonder about all those daily social interactions in which women are quieter, ignored, or invisible, because those social interactions seem normal."