And yet, he’s probably just a model getting paid to wear a tshirt for the purpose of changing the image that of all feminists as spikey dikes.
True. Because we cannot conceive of a young black man who would actively display that kind of message. If we saw this on a young white guy, he would be a target of ridicule. And wouldn’t it make a hilarious addition to the Frank Rossitano hat line?
(via brittneyg)
And yet, I’m thinking he’s not totally aware of how he profits from the intricacies of his own hetero, cisgendered-binary, non-intersex, male privilege. I’m thinking he’s not outraged at how teh Patriarchy has subverted Third-wave feminism to its own ends.
I’m thinking he just wants equality for women.
Rockstar of State
Obama really was clever, internationally leveraging the Clinton brand like that. Look at the faces of those young women.
(via thepoliticalpartygirl)
LOL
NO SHE
WASN’T
(if Eve was framed, that would mean that God’s judgement was incorrect, and therefore that God would not be infallible, so, that would be fine if an atheist was saying this, but since these feminists are using Eve as a symbol, they, I’d expect hold her religious status up as symbolic and important, and therefore would not be athiests, since for this statment to mean something, they have to have some type of faith in the Bible and God. So, in short, stupid bitches.)
Assuming this is point to the blame of who first ate from the Tree of Knowledge it wouldn’t be questioning God’s fallibility. If we read Genesis, this wouldn’t actually be calling God fallible as He never made the distinction of who first plucked a fruit from the Tree and punished both Adam and Eve for eating the fruit—punishing men to a life of hard labor and women to childbirth, proving intelligent design also applies to gender roles.
However, this entire argument is a moot point as they were likely pardoned. Christ said “The only way to heaven is through me,” holding that God and Jesus are one in the same and Adam and Eve spoke to God/Jesus it’s likely that they were pardoned anyhow. You can see God’s benevolence to them even after the Fall through by blessing them with a long life (900+ years, shazam), children (I don’t know that allowing someone to pass something the size of a football through their vagina without first giving them the miracle of medicine is a blessing, but I digress), and even making them some duds.
So theologically, this is a sound statement. Thought I did once get yelled at by a Monsignor in The Vatican for saying that the Christian idea of dogs’ soullessness and thus exemption from heaven made me question my willingness to maintain my faith.
Look at the silly bible-thumpers! They think she’s making a point of theology.
Ha, ha. Good times.
Basically, with every passing day my tolerance for 3rd wave “lipstick is feminist!” “Being sexy is empowerful!” and “stripper poles are just an expression of femininity!” arguments grows smaller and smaller.
Well, this was an interesting one to eavesdrop on …
jgh:
Seriously, fuck the 3rd wave.
Seriously: fuck smug, superior dismissals of pole dancing.
jgh:
I have nothing against pole dancing. I think pole dancing sounds like fun.
I think claiming that pole dancing is the empowerful apetheosis of feminist thought is damaging to the feminist movement.
And having a conversation about pole dancing is a distraction tactic from larger issues. I’m tired of one’s choice in personal comportment and hobbies being of great political import. Sometimes lipstick is just lipstick. I think it can be insightful to talk about these things, but when the conversation is dominated by discussions of the feminism of garter belts, we’ve lost sight of some other issues.
I used to be all about pro-sex feminism. And it does have its place. I hate that the conversation is dominated by it without any other feminist issues really getting much air time.
“I think claiming that pole dancing is the empowerful apetheosis of feminist thought is damaging to the feminist movement.”
Show me where ANYONE EVER HAS ARGUED THAT and I’ll cede the point.
But, no. That card gets played a whole lot, and pole dancing gets used as THE example of silly modern faux feminism. And I’m fucking fed up w/ it. I do not appreciate other feminists deriding something they know fuck-all about. And then trying to tell me, “Oh, no, we’re not JUDGING, we’re not saying there’s anything WRONG with it…” I’ve had these conversations too many times now to be fooled by that line. Also, pole dancing isn’t IMPORTANT, we shouldn’t waste our time talking about it - instead let’s talk about the IMPORTANT, OTHER feminist issues. The ones that don’t involve silly women doing silly things.
I also hate the term “pro-sex feminism.” It is typically used by people who are anti-sex positive feminist and do not properly understand the meaning.
jgh:
You’re talking at me, not to me, so I’m not sure if we can have a civil conversation? I hope we can!
I’ve heard the “pole dancing” is empowering argument all the time from many, MANY fellow Gender Studies students who identified as feminist at the University of Pennsylvania. I’ll grant that it’s not an argument made by the most studied of the Feminist Canon (TM), but it’s an argument I encountered a lot and it drove me nuts.
I also have heard variations of this argument made by my peers in everyday life, who may not identify as “feminist” but consider it a feminist thing to do.
I do think sex-positive, or pro-sex feminism (I use both interchangeably and I used to mostly identify as one) has its place. I think deriding pole dancing as inherently evil, or sexist, or whatnot is myopic.
But I’m also tired of the feminist conversation being commandeered by sex-positive issues. I think they are important. I think they are necessary. I also wish there was some more air time given to other issues.
It really doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. Honestly. And a lot of my anger isn’t about sex positive feminism itself - it’s about how Joe Francis can argue with a straight face that Girls Gone Wild is empowerful and feminist. It’s about how male privilege has co-opted the sex-positive movement so they can do the Same Old Shit and claim it’s “enlightened.”
Does that make sense? I hope so.
Hm.
Completely unrelated to the issues (ably) discussed here, “show-me-anyone-other-than-yourself-who-has-ever-argued-that-point-in-the-history-of-the-known-universe” is a neat rhetorical trick. It sounds like the Argument from Personal Incredulity, but it’s not. Easily dispatched, but it’s one I hadn’t heard until now.
![thepoliticalpartygirl: :sexismandthecity:
Anti-Feminist troll Bingo
this is 75% no 89% of the people that exist. But then again I just made that statistic up.
Really? These are your trolls?
A1.) I prefer to call myself an equalist.
Until a man who calls himself a feminist doesn’t come in for all kinds of abuse from many feminist circles, you’re going to have to let the “equalist” remark slide. There is no word for being politically pro-woman which does not make the male speaker sound like a raging douche.
D1.) Direct Invocation of Godwin’s Law
If someone is invoking Godwin’s Law, they’re citing Godwin’s Law and are not guilty of violating Godwin’s Law. They’re pointing out another party who is. Being on the wrong side of Godwin’s Law is a bad thing.
D4.) Forty percent of rape reports are false. D5.) I just don’t believe that [cited statistic] is true.
Read D4, then D5. Also, read D5, followed by D4. After you have read D5, followed by D4, switch the order and begin the process again. Rinse. Repeat.
It’s one thing to display inconsistent thinking, but it’s truly priceless when you place them right next to each other.
E1.) I believe in innocent until proven guilty!A5.) But an innocent man could go to prison!
What are you, the Bush White House? When you decide to mock a belief in the presumption of innocence, you can march your ass back to the eighteenth century and see how far that snark carries when the speaker has two X chromosomes. Burden of proof, like equal rights, is good for everyone.
This is tired bullshit. Better feminist critiques needed.](http://jess.malaprop.org/bingo.jpg)
thepoliticalpartygirl: :sexismandthecity:
Anti-Feminist troll Bingo
this is75%no 89% of the people that exist. But then again I just made that statistic up.
Really? These are your trolls?
A1.) I prefer to call myself an equalist.
Until a man who calls himself a feminist doesn’t come in for all kinds of abuse from many feminist circles, you’re going to have to let the “equalist” remark slide. There is no word for being politically pro-woman which does not make the male speaker sound like a raging douche.
D1.) Direct Invocation of Godwin’s Law
If someone is invoking Godwin’s Law, they’re citing Godwin’s Law and are not guilty of violating Godwin’s Law. They’re pointing out another party who is. Being on the wrong side of Godwin’s Law is a bad thing.
D4.) Forty percent of rape reports are false.
D5.) I just don’t believe that [cited statistic] is true.
Read D4, then D5. Also, read D5, followed by D4. After you have read D5, followed by D4, switch the order and begin the process again. Rinse. Repeat.
It’s one thing to display inconsistent thinking, but it’s truly priceless when you place them right next to each other.
E1.) I believe in innocent until proven guilty!
A5.) But an innocent man could go to prison!
What are you, the Bush White House? When you decide to mock a belief in the presumption of innocence, you can march your ass back to the eighteenth century and see how far that snark carries when the speaker has two X chromosomes. Burden of proof, like equal rights, is good for everyone.
This is tired bullshit. Better feminist critiques needed.
Women… Resist!
BREAKING NEWS: Uncle Sam is writing the covers for Gentlemans’ Quarterly!
EDITORIAL: Lyddie England is a scapegoat because she’s female? That’s really going to piss off the other four men who were also convicted, because they have penises!
WANTED: Better feminist critiques. Apply within.
Feminist writers.
So if you color the hair red, Maureen Dowd is an anti-feminist writer. Pretty sure Dorothy Parker had a cocktail, too. And I guess the legacy of Coco Chanel belongs to Phyllis Schlafly.
Also: Only caricatures of Valerie Solinas make the cut.
This cartoon is pitiful. Someone should have their nuance card revoked.
(via nihilistidealist)
Feminism loves you
Ain’t it the truth?
- My boss is a woman. Small business owner. I like having a job. So that’s great. Feminism is good for my bank account
- Abortion is legal. Should a pregnancy occur, I’m not automatically a father. So that’s great. Feminism is good for my testicles.
- I have a sister and a mother. I love them very much. But I don’t want to support them financially. Equal pay would be nice, but it’s good that they have jobs. Feminism is good for my family.
Remind me again why feminism is bad for men? Is it the feministas?
Continued from thepoliticalpartygirl:
I am not certain what you are arguing or why you take issue with what I said …
Like I said, this part:
Ignoring a person’s right to say, “stop penetrating my body” is the most basic denial of humanity.
When you’re selling body penetration, this “denial of humanity” is anything but basic. Sexual interactions themselves are not basic; they’re irreducibly complex. And now we’re layering commerce on top of that? Please stop acting as if the issues surrounding the granting and withholding of consent during an act of prostitution are clear-cut and self-evident. They’re not.
Let’s drop the metaphors.
I agree that sex work resists analogy to other transactions, legal and illegal. It’s thorny stuff.
A person is having intercourse with a sex worker. The sex worker says, “We are done. Stop.” At that point, the customer must stop.
Ugh. How can you not see that as murky? Your example is pretty one-dimensional. It’s also deliberately free of context. I’m not implying that either party abdicates responsibility during the act. But it’s not a manicure. We’re talking about very primal experiences. These are not moments of heightened control.
What comes after that, whether there is a refund or the sex worker offers a rain check, whatever, is all peripheral.
It’s not peripheral at all. I guess it’s peripheral if it’s empirically, objectively rape. And if we could always prove rape in all instances, then we might not be having this conversation. But that’s a fantasy world. What if the sex worker is making a bad faith transaction?
When a sex worker says “stop,” and the customer continues, it is indeed rape. That is what is being addressed here, or at least in the original quote and my original argument.
Example: The customer is in the moments just before orgasm. The sex worker says “stop”. The customer, for two seconds, does not. Under your definition, that person is a rapist, a sex offender indistinguishable from the man who breaks into your home and forcibly rapes as you were sleeping. I reject that equivalency, and your blanket statements about what constitutes rape.
Disclosure: I work in an urban medical clinic. I’ve helped run studies that have included many sex workers, usually women and gay men. The patient population includes many johns as well. I don’t want to mix this in with the horror of rape by law enforcement or pimps, but without getting too deep in the weeds, permit me to suggest that neither customer nor solicitor operate under Better Business Bureau guidelines. Prostitution is adversarial and exploitative, on both sides of the transaction.
If this is what we are discussing, I’m very uncomfortable with the assumption that there is an “ethically gray area”
Then maybe you’re not up to the heat in this particular kitchen. If legislating the permissibility of sex workers halting their customers in the middle of primal bodily functions isn’t ethically gray, I seriously don’t know what is.
(I will grant you the lack of legal infrastructure) when speaking about a sex worker’s right to say, “No.”
But that’s exactly the thing. Our legal infrastructure sucks. Our legal definition of rape is oversimple when it comes to prostitution. 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree sexual assault statutes make a lot more sense when applied to domestic violence, random sexual assault, date rape, etc. I’m not arguing that rape during sex work is of lesser or greater offense than rape outside of sex work, just that it’s … different, like how sexual assault isn’t less of a crime than statutory rape. But a judge has discretion over whether the 18 year-old is a “rapist” just by sleeping with his 17 year-old girlfriend.
There is no ethically grey area when it comes to rape.
There is an ethically grey area when it comes to determining if rape occurred. Hell, there’s an ethically grey area when it comes to taking of human life. That’s why we have judges and juries. If it was all black and white—if all that was required was simple application of the law, sentences would be meted out by disinterested public servants, like parking tickets.
No is no.
And A is A. Now let’s talk about the world we actually live in, yes?
No metaphor can hide the thick, stark line between consent and rape of a mentally capable person.
And no metaphor can clear it up either.
