- underaged girl: "Someone is posting nude photos of me on the internet. This is dissemination of child pornography and is causing me to be harassed in school!"
- Cops: "Sorry, it's the internet! There's no way to track them!"
- Midwest football players: "Someone leaked a video of us gang-raping a teenage girl! This invasion of privacy caused us to have to take responsibility for our actions!"
- Cops: "Don't worry, sons! We've tracked their IP and are demanding a 10-year sentence for their egregious crime!"
This hit me like a ton of bricks. I’m still feeling a little nauseous after this realization.
"If privilege and oppression are visible only as issues for oppressed groups, then privileged groups don’t have to feel responsible or accountable or even involved. Men can feel good-even virtuous-when they show any concern for “women’s issues” or just don’t behave in overtly sexist ways. They can regard the slightest gesture in support of gender equality-from saying they favor equal pay to doing the dinner dishes-as a sign of what good people they are. And men can take comfort from the illusion that women can achieve justice for themselves by resolving women’s issues with some help from benevolent men but without radically affecting men’s lives or how patriarchal society is organized, including its male-identified core values."
Allan G. Johnson (via wretchedoftheearth)
Opinion: Latina Stereotypes Still Rule TV and Films
Latina stereotypes - the hot mami, the sassy spitfire, the shy maid -have been around forever. It’s time to see some smart Latinas represented.
What Latina stereotypes do you see in the media?
this should not have floored me but OH MY GOODNESS DID IT THOUGH
another one of those posts that fucks with your whole world view (in a good way)
So let me get this straight… Dudebro objectified a woman’s body… for attention.
Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence. They’re wrong and they’re dangerous and they need to be stopped.
(trigger warning for generalized MRA bullshit)
(Boston Magazine) - If your last memory of men’s groups is Robert Bly and the boys banging on drums in the woods, you likely have no idea how the movement has mutated. Today, men’s rights groups tend to be organized around the belief that this country has launched a “war on fatherhood.” To them, the rise of feminism resulted in the fall of man, with males now being relegated to the periphery of society. In their eyes, the media portray men as feckless buffoons, legislative bodies unfairly target them, and biased courts blindly punish guiltless husbands. (Full disclosure: I was a producer of the 2011 documentary No Way Out But One, which examined the family court system.)
Nationally, groups like Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) and A Voice for Men have helped slow the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act—which would provide $660 million in funding for shelters, legal aid, and other programs to protect battered women—by convincing conservative House Republicans that the law shouldn’t include immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims. SAVE claims the law is biased, noting in a fact sheet titled “Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence” that “female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence.” In other words: She was asking for it, officer.
"Prejudice against women, however, has deep and far-reaching consequences that do a lot more than make them feel bad, for it supports an entire system that privileges men at women’s expense. Sexist prejudice doesn’t just target individual women, for it is fundamentally about women and strikes at femaleness itself in every instance. Each expression of antifemale prejudice always amounts to more than what is said, for it reaffirms a cultural legacy of patriarchal privilege and oppression. When a particular woman is treated as less intelligent, less serious, and less important than the men she works with, for example, this specific view of her is easily linked to the patriarchal idea that women in general are inferior to men. When men ignore her ideas and suggestions or pay more attention to her looks than to her work, they do so with a cultural authority that damages her far more than similar treatment directed at a man.
Since patriarchal culture values maleness, the weight behind antimale prejudice is limited primarily to the individual woman who expresses it and is therefore easier to discount (“She must not like men”). And however hurt men might feel, they can always turn to the compensations of male privilege and a mainstream culture that sends continuing messages of inherent male value. In this sense, the issue isn’t whether prejudice hurts-it hurts everyone it touches. But prejudice against women wounds in deeper and more complex ways than does prejudice against men because the hurt is magnified by a patriarchal system that spreads it by association to all women and that systematically links it to male privilege.
Because prejudice affects women and men so differently, calling antimale prejudice “sexism” distorts the reality of how systems of privilege work. Prejudice against women not only harms individual women, but perpetuates an oppressive system based on gender that harms women more deeply than any isolated instance of hurtful speech or discrimination. Antimale prejudice may hurt individual men, but it isn’t connected to a system that devalues maleness and oppresses men as a result. The difference between the two is so great that we need to distinguish the one from the other, and that’s what words like “sexism” and “racism” are for. Sexism distinguishes simple gender prejudice-which can affect men and women both-from the much deeper and broader consequence of expressing and perpetuating privilege and oppression. Without this distinction, we treat all harm as equivalent without taking into account important differences on both the personal and the social levels in what causes it and what it does to people."
Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot (via wretchedoftheearth)
Sexism is such a thing in Trek. For all his utopian ideals, Roddenberry was bad at rising above his own flaws, sexism being the most obvious. (Not misogyny, mind. Dude seems to have been a sincere and dedicated advocate for female empowerment in spite of his own weird ideas about “what women are like.”) And that has utterly permeated Trek ever since.
I mean, is there any more glorious example of men not knowing how to write women than Deanna Troi? Data is a robot and Worf is a badass and Geordie has frigging cyborg eyes, but what do we give our token superpowered lady? Feelings powers. Oh, and all but invariably her episodes are those goddamn “alien shows up, Troi falls in lurrrve, feelings feelings feelings” plots, because Sagan forbid she end up in any other situation, ever.
Worse, some dumbfuck in the writers’ room eventually went “picard has his flute and riker has his beard and data has his cat and worf has his stupid parentheses sword, how should we humanize troi? oh i know: MAKE HER OBSESSED WITH CHOCOLATE.”
“bitches love chocolate”
Of course, supreme badass Dr. Crusher was constantly being undermined at the script stage by her precocious twerp of an offspring, and I’m not even going to get into the writers’ bizarre treatment of Tasha “Rape Gangs” Yar. (I will say that Ro Laren got unusually good writing. For the, what, five episodes she appeared in?) But when an actor is like “please, please, please can I wear the fucking uniform like every other fucking person in the cast?” and the writers answer, “no, trust us, your character is more comfortable with her cleavage showing,” you know what? That is some bullshit is what.
And it’s not just an unpleasant legacy that people moved away from post-Roddenberry. How about that long-running plot in DS9 where Kira is reduced to nothing more than a handy replacement womb for my baby, my baby! Homegirl is literally forced by medical necessity to go through another woman’s entire pregnancy, and it is never once addressed how fucked up this is, except that gee it sure does make Miles O’Brien’s marriage awkward!
Or Voyager? I haven’t watched Voyager for the same reason Jeff Winger isn’t into Glee (“I hate it! I don’t understand the appeal at all!”), but reliable hearsay from breathless fans informs me that, like Picard, Trek’s first female captain likes to turn the holodeck into an outlet for her wistful daydreams. Of course, there’s a slight difference: Picard fantasizes about being a detective from pulpy noir adventure novels, while Janeway fantasizes about being a governess. You read that correctly: a motherfucking nanny from the motherfucking Victorian era. Because heaven forfend that in a world where it ain’t even a thing for a woman to command a starship, that woman not pine for BABIES TO TAKE CARE OF and (no I will not get over this) THE. MOTHERFUCKING. VICTORIAN ERA!!!
So no, it didn’t surprise me to see an all-male, all-white, all-manchild creative team behind the Trek reboot. It’s fitting, in a way. And I’m going to go ahead and piss all the fanboys off by pointing out that the reboot is by far the best movie Trek has ever produced. Whine that it’s “bad Trek” all you want; nothing other than Wrath of Khan comes even close to being as solid a cinema experience. If anything about the reboot did surprise me, it’s that there was so little sexism in the finished product, in spite of its pedigree and the involvement of questionable minds like Lindelof. The treatment of Orions alone made me want to applaud.
So, as always: progress is slow. Progress is frustrating. But progress is progress.
I really only want to say two things. 1) ENSIGN RO WAS MY GIRL 2) Kira was so fantastic in the pilot episode of DS9 and so meh in every episode after that. She got defanged in a major way. 3) Dax got some good writing, but they were treating her as a male, due to her previous host being male. Very telling.
males are disgusting even before they hit puberty
f_cking little entitled b_stard i hate men
Yes, sadly we are.
Seriously, we all need to consider how we’re bringing up the kids, especially the boys, in our lives. We need to reevaluate how we react to shit like this, which happens all the time. We need to think about what we’re sending out when this is deemed as ‘cute’ when actually we’re watching a little girl be repeatedly kissed when she’s constantly expressed she doesn’t want to. This type of thing is teaching boys that girls must always accept and be grateful for the attention and affection boys offer, even when the girls do not themselves want it, and that these boys are owed reciprocity.
Comedians Who Use Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc for Humor Think They’re Edgy
When in fact you just seem like a senile 85 year old with pants up to your nipples rambling about back when “them damn devil women weren’t allowed to control their eeeeeeeevil vaginas.”
Congrats, you have actually succeeded in becoming grandpa Simpson. You are the least controversial, shocking, revolutionary standup comedian on the planet, your jokes were hackneyed in 1955.
This is you:
You are not saying what we’re all thinking, but too scared to say, you’re saying what literally everyone else in society got over thinking decades ago. You are an anachronism, get back in your own millenium.
Omnibus of scumbags
Some responses to things I’ve seen on my Dash today, compiled here so as to spare you from multiple posts about people being ignorant jerks about stupid shit:
Tard the cat: The owners are shitty people and the name is ugly ableism. I have no patience for people defending them. You can think the cat is cute without justifying or minimizing its owners shittiness. See: How to be a fan of problematic things.
Wil Wheaton: Or how not to behave when you’re being called out for doing something stupid. Don’t double down on a mistake by deflecting criticism for it or whining about your feelings. Intent isn’t magic. Good intentions don’t erase bad actions or consequences. Ovary up, apologize, learn something from your mistake, and move on. Can’t be arsed to do that? Goodbye.
People against Black James Bond: This doesn’t erase English culture. There are and have been black people in England for centuries. Also, James Bond is a fictional character. Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare, Churchill and Jane Austen are all real people. Changing their ethnicity or race would be weird, but there’s absolutely nothing about James Bond as a character that makes him essentially white. He’s a debonair British spy and ladies’ man. Nothing about those character traits = whiteness. If you think they are, then you need to take a good, hard look at yourself.
Fighting hate with hate: It’s misleading to equate the hatefulness of bigotry with the anger of the oppressed. Context matters. The hatred of oppressive bigots is unwarranted, unjustifiable aggression toward marginalized and disempowered peoples for characteristics they can’t control. The hatred of the oppressed is a reaction to that aggression—it didn’t spring from nowhere. Let me repeat this: bigotry is aggression. An aggressive response to bigotry is the self-preservation instinct kicking in. Treating the two things as though they were the same is wrong.
James Gunn: is a homophobic, misogynist sack of shit. See what I did there?
"The host societies of migrant Filipina domestic workers should also be held more accountable for their welfare and for that of their families. These women’s work allows First World women to enter the paid labor force. As one Dutch employer states, “There are people who would look after children, but other things are more fun. Carers from other countries, if we can use their surplus carers, that’s a solution."
The Care Crisis in the Philippines: Children and Transnational Families in the New Global Economy by Rhacel Salazar Parrena
Most receiving countries have yet to recognize the contributions of their migrant care workers. They have consistently ignored these workers’ rights and limited their full incorporation into society. The wages of migrant workers are so low that they cannot afford to bring their own families to join them, or to regularly visit their children in the Philippines; relegated to the status of guest workers, they are restricted to the low-wage employment sector, and with very few exceptions, the migration of their spouses and children is also restricted.” These arrangements work to the benefit of employers, since migrant care workers can give the best possible care for their employers’ families when they are free of care-giving responsibilities to their own families. But there is a dire need to lobby for more inclusive policies,and for employers to develop a sense of accountability for their workers’ children. After all, migrant workers significantly help their employers to reduce their families’ care deficit.
I’d like to draw the attention of white feminists here. Why are immigrants’ rights, and the rights of domestics who are women of color, not an intregal part of your platform? Why isn’t Caitlin Moran, Jessica Valentine, or any other major white feminist talking about the care crisis in third world nations as impoverished women facing daunting lives move to entirely new worlds to take care of WHITE CHILDREN so that WHITE WOMEN can go to work?
Your advocacy, your movement, is built on the backs of THESE WOMEN and Black women who have had to IGNORE THEIR OWN FAMILIES, THEIR OWN CHILDREN, SO THAT YOU COULD LEAVE THE HOUSE.
If there is ever an issue that is FOUNDATIONAL to the lives of well-to-do white women or Western feminists in general, it is the appalling way domestic workers are treated. While that Caribbean nanny, Black mami, or Filipina au pair takes care of your child, did you ever stop to think about their families and the lives they’ve left behind?
How without immigrants or women of color, white women wouldn’t be able to work at their own leisure? That white men wouldn’t enjoy the knowledge that there is no such thing as a care crisis in America?(via rafsimon-murderer)