You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Feminism’ category.
Well let’s file this under practical and useful tips for the ladies…
Of course, as you can see in the video, even dressing in a a garbage bag is no guarantee that you won’t be harassed.
“The effect of chivalry then is to reinforce sex roles, a system geared to the creation of dominant males and submissive females. Students in our “Psychology of Women” classes have routinely argued that the act of a man opening a door for a woman has nothing to do with sexism it’s simply one person being polite to another. If they are right, then men should feel complimented when women (and men) open doors for them. To test this presumption, we ask the women in the class to open doors for men and the men to wait at doors until a woman opens the door for them. We also ask them to record the responses they receive. (we also ask that you the reader do the same). The women learn that there is a sizable minority of men that refuses to go through a door held open for them by a woman, becoming irate if the woman insist on “just being polite.” Even more insulting to men is when a man opens a door for another man. We have to ask ourselves then, why are men insulted when women and/or men open doors for him? The conclusion can only be that the man that is allowing the door to be opened for him is then forced into the role of being passive and thereby forcing him in the role as “female” and this is perceived by the man as demeaning.
Once we turn the tables and women do “chivalrous” acts for men, we find out quickly that “chivalry” is a social norm that is invisible until you violate it.“ – Dee. L. Graham, Loving to Survive
Accept this innocuous challenge ladies? Report back in the comments section, if you dare… :)
Dr. Jen Gunter : Ben Carson says a 22 week fetus can feel pain. Science says Carson is wrong.
Wow, another dude Republican candidate who gets the vapours when it comes to female reproductive issues.
Dr.Carson is a neurosurgeon perhaps he can discover what is making his thoughts come from ass instead of his head.
Quelle Surprise.
Wow. What brilliant article by Ms.Fowles recently published by the Walrus. I’m gonna put the whole thing up here because it sheds light on so many of the issues that face women today in the online world. Consider this example #2348239487 of how woman’s experiences in society are dramatically different than those of men.
“Every so often, someone (always a man) sends me a casual tweet asking why he can’t retweet me. Of course, the obvious answer is that my account is locked—a tiny optional blessing of Twitter’s functionality that means I’m not searchable to the world outside. The more complex answer relates to why my account is locked in the first place, why I would choose to keep people from reading my brilliant musings on ’90s’ teen movies, Rihanna’s latest video, or the myriad virtues of Magic Mike XXL. There are easy, palatable answers I have given to those that ask; I value my privacy, or I like to keep my circle small and manageable, or I prefer to keep the personal aspects of my life away from my employers and ex-boyfriends.
But the most important (and truest) answer is this: I am afraid of men on the Internet.
There’s good reason for this fear, and it’s likely one you’ll empathize with if you’re a woman who has ever dared to have an opinion in the techno-public realm. In fact, women have never once asked me why my account is locked—and unlike some of my male editors, they’ve never recommended opening it up. They understand that the online world has become a horror show, and that men largely drive that horror. Men are usually the ones who post nude pictures of their exes, release the home addresses of the women they dislike, and run the vileness that is Gamergate. (I’m even reluctant to type the word Gamergate, as if doing so conjures the hoards like some kind of Internet Candyman.) Of course, Not All Men, but unless a new Twitter follower has “I hate women” or some variation thereof in his bio, there’s no good way to predict which one will decide to take offence at you merely existing. And there’s no way to know whether that person who is offended will be the one to threaten to end your life.
Online technology has allowed a stranger to tell me he’d like to penetrate me with a broken light bulb because I’d “probably like it.” It has let a commenter inform me that women shouldn’t act the “way they do” if they don’t want men to commit crimes against them. I’ve been the subject of mockery and derision on men’s-rights-activist websites and right-wing blogs. On a good day, the Internet helps people let me know I’m stupid, and on a bad one it helps them threaten me with bodily harm. It’s facilitated me being called a man hater, a feminazi, a libtard, a hack, an attention whore, or just a plain old whore. It’s brought me patronizing questions, profanity-laden emails, and abuse masquerading as “criticism.”
It has also been a great way for people to tell me that I should ignore all this, that I should get a thicker skin, and if I don’t like it maybe I should get offline altogether.”
Catch the rest at the Walrus, as apparently they need their ad revenue – tracking down hole in the wall blogs for copyright violations is an expensive business.
An interesting lesson in patriarchy.
Men can be gay and want to get married.
Men can’t get pregnant.
[Source:Radicalfeministuprising]
Snapped at a red light on the way home last week
This ad only makes sense in the presence of the following cultural subtext:
Women’s anger is not valid in the same way that full adult humans’ (i.e. men’s) anger is valid. You don’t need to get to the root of the problem and address it; just spend the right amount of money to show you love her. She couldn’t possibly be having a reasonable reaction to being treated badly, she’s just feeling insecure or jealous or maybe on her period.
Autumn approaches; the obnoxious university ‘Week of Welcome’ orientation drones are yelling insipid, yet inclusive, chants at each other; and of course, more stupid post mostly made of straw languidly emerge from the turbid depths of the wordpress “patriarchy” tag. Like appreciating the subtle fireworks of the turning of the leaves, one can appreciate the flawed assumptions and ignorance on display over at A Reasonable Faith. But Lo! The coming of Fall and the exudation of a steaming pile of Herp-Derp always leaves one gasping for breath at the enchanting majesty of nature in all her glory in the first case, and in wonderment at the raw-stupid on display in the other. (hurrah for awkward parallel sentence construction!)
Two concepts that will help us in our merry cavalcade of fail will be that of the (1.)Naturalistic Fallacy(with due consideration to Hume) and the concept of a (2.)Social Construct lets define them:
- The Naturalistic Fallacy – […] the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. Even more distantly, the term is used to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from the fact that something is “natural” or “unnatural.”
- Social Construct – A social construction, or social construct or a social concept is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society which exists solely because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to follow certain conventional rules.
Most of the problems with the post I’m about to critique will default to a lack of understanding of these concepts and how they work in our society. I would be remiss to also point out that there is, of course, a generous helping of strawwoman arguments that serve to undermine the authors arguments and credibility.
So let loose the doges of war, and we shall have at it:
“If there’s one truth that would impact culture for good more than just about any other if it were more male-female-brainwidely believed, accepted, and embraced, it’s this: males and females are quite different from each other. We are. And not just anatomically but physiologically and emotionally”
Sounds good right? Too bad its almost entirely bullocks. Let’s take a peek at what people who study sex and gender differences have to say:
“A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership.”
Hmm…it would seem that the some of the research directly contradicts your claim..but wait!!! There might be hope, there are differences!!!!
“Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships.”
Whooops… you’re still wrong.
“Hyde found that gender differences seem to depend on the context in which they were measured. In studies designed to eliminate gender norms, researchers demonstrated that gender roles and social context strongly determined a person’s actions. For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected – women were more aggressive and men were more passive.”
We could simply drop the mic here and be done with this piffle (flawed assumptions leading to flawed conclusions and all that), but where is the fun in that?
Let us soldier on brave readers! Bewarned and wary, forward we must go fellow travellers(of the loquaciously impenitent persuasion), to further reconnoitre this curiously(willfully?) ignorant realm.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…