Posts tagged feminism

Posted 2 weeks ago
Bring consent out of the bedroom. I think part of the reason we have trouble drawing the line “it’s not okay to force someone into sexual activity” is that in many ways, forcing people to do things is part of our culture in general. Cut that shit out of your life. If someone doesn’t want to go to a party, try a new food, get up and dance, make small talk at the lunchtable—that’s their right. Stop the “aww c’mon” and “just this once” and the games where you playfully force someone to play along. Accept that no means no—all the time.

via The Pervocracy: Consent culture. (via notemily)

Really into these emerging conversations about the broader harassment culture.

(via thefacci)

Posted 3 weeks ago

kforshort:

Make women of color the center of your activism.

Make women of color the center of your class movement.

Make women of color the center of your race movement.

Make women of color the center of your feminist movement.

Make women of color the center of your queer movement.

Make women of color the center of your transgender movement.

Make women of color the center of your disabled movement.

If women of color are not at the center of your activism, you’re doing it wrong.

Posted 3 weeks ago
Posted 1 month ago

hyenaboy:

freedominwickedness:

hyenaboy:

Yes, being in a female dominated field, I do know what it means to be marginalized. “

oh

my

god

omg

oh my fucking god

The really ugly part is they’ve actually done multiple sociological studies on this, and guess what the result is? Men in female-dominated fields aren’t marginalized at all; they get special treatment and are fast-tracked to the top, getting more credit for their work, faster promotions, and greater pay and benefits than their female colleagues.

Here’s one study. Here’s another. And another.

That’s pretty much what I expected (though sad). I’ll hold onto these if I come into contact with this guy again.

Posted 1 month ago

bfals:

joss whedon, noted feminist who fired charisma carpenter for daring to be pregnant

joss whedon, white cishet male who decides that he gets to define feminism and rebrand it to make it more appealing to himself, while also erasing the entire history of feminism and ignoring the existence of the term womanist

joss whedon, making a speech about feminism whose only mention of a female is to dismiss her entirely

joss whedon, deciding that the biggest problem with feminism is in its name and not its history of being racist, transphobic, and homophobic

joss whedon, lacking all self-awareness when twisting a brilliant junot diaz quote about poc representation to mean representation for white cis females

joss whedon, trying to equate sexism and racism while completely ignoring that woc exist and can experience both at the same time

joss whedon saying equality is important!!!!! but not casting a single asian person in his show grounded in the fusion of asian (primarily chinese) - western culture and also equating reavers (literally referring to them as the monsters of the story) with the apache

wait hold up, ignore all that, i should just be super grateful to joss “what is privilege and intersectionality?” whedon for having the courage to speak over women on a continuous basis

eta: now with links for all you asswipes who think i’m making this up solely to demonize your precious white cishet male hero (a lot of this shit is about his recent fucking terrible equality now speech)

eta 2: and now with bonus fuckups

Posted 1 month ago
Women are told it is unfeminine and gross to have muscles and to cultivate strength, which in turn leads them to actively avoid doing things that will build muscles and strength, which then makes them even less capable of doing things that require strength, which the critics then use as proof of women’s inherent physical frailty. And so the cycle continues…
Posted 1 month ago

On the commonly misattributed Emma Goldman quote “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution”

organt:

"If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution" a quote frequently attributed to anarcho-feminist icon Emma Goldman, never actually appears in any of her work. It was invented by anarchist printer Jack Frager in 1973 for a series of t-shirts, a paraphrase of a longer paragraph from Goldman’s autobiography Living My Life:

At the dances I was one of the most untiring and gayest. One evening a cousin of Sasha, a young boy, took me aside. With a grave face, as if he were about to announce the death of a dear comrade, he whispered to me that it did not behoove an agitator to dance. Certainly not with such reckless abandon, anyway. It was undignified for one who was on the way to become a force in the anarchist movement. My frivolity would only hurt the Cause. I grew furious at the impudent interference of the boy. I told him to mind his own business. I was tired of having the Cause constantly thrown into my face. I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. I insisted that our Cause could not expect me to become a nun and that the movement would not be turned into a cloister. If it meant that, I did not want it.

more

Posted 2 months ago

lovethroughthedarkdays:

copyright 2001, american girl library empowering girls by teaching them consent is and how manipulation is never ok

(Source: mazesprinter)

Posted 2 months ago
There are so many exceptionally good books with strong female characters, but not nearly enough, and boys are not encouraged to immerse themselves in them. How many people would never consider buying Anne of Green Gables or Island of the Blue Dolphins for their 10-year old boy, but don’t pause before giving a daughter Treasure Island or Enders Game? Books featuring girls are, for the most part, understood to be books for girls. Which is interesting as well because, in addition to there not being enough, books featuring girls as protagonists are disproportionately among the most frequently banned children’s books. In a recent Buzzfeed list of 15 commonly banned books for kids, almost half were about girls. Girls who do things apparently scare a lot of people.

What Does it Mean that Most Children’s Books Are Still About White Boys?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/why-are-childrens-books-are-still-about-white-boys_b_4227163.html

(Source: ya-hanini)

Posted 3 months ago
Of all the problems with White Feminism, one of its biggest is that, like other forms of whiteness, white feminism just sees itself as ‘feminism’ without realizing that it’s falling into the old pitfall of viewing whiteness as the default standpoint and point of view. It assumes that white feminism speaks for all womanhood and all people, and that it is the paradigm that will eliminate oppression. White Feminism attacks what it perceives to be misogyny against its own definition of femininity and womanhood, not realizing that it often supports colonization, racism, cultural appropriation, and reinforces white supremacy by discounting and dismissing the experiences and perspectives of women of color.
Posted 3 months ago

Battle of the Sexists (aka Let The Self-Promotion Roll, Ladies)

gwendabond:

(Superlong post mirrored from the other place.)

So…I almost talked myself out of making this post, but then, hey, I said I was going to start blogging again and these are the kinds of things I’m interesting in blogging about. Even though it is a little scary, for reasons the post will make clear. The thing is, publishing books is—even though our books are not ourselves—extremely revealing, by which I mean it opens us up to lots more casual judgment and criticism, especially when we voice opinions that not everyone agrees with or wants to hear.

It’s probably one of the reasons I’ve talked less in depth about anything except writing and interesting bits and bobs I find on the Internet here, since Blackwood came out. The other is that it takes time, time away from writing fiction and doing other work and living, which is time and mental space I don’t have much of. I like watching TV too much. So, there will probably be a lot more nattering type “this is what’s going on” posts. Pet pictures and the like. But I’m not happy with confining all discussions of other things to twitter or facebook, and so here we are. And I come to you with a ranty ramble.

What prompted this post is a stew of things that happened to appear in concert this week, and some of which I’ve been stewing about ever since.

The first was the Jennifer Weiner profile in the New Yorker. I only just got time to read the whole thing last night. It’s a fair, thoughtful piece, and definitely worth your time. 

I saw a few tweets flying around, which notified me of its existence, but the actual first direct impression I got of it was a secondary one. My friend Erin posted a link to a Slate reaction piece to it, one which had rightly piqued her ire. Reader, this piece makes my blood boil. The headline: "Jennifer Weiner Critiques Sexism in Publishing, Promotes Self." But, you know, writers aren’t always in charge of the headline, and they often seem written to troll for outrage clicks, so I was prepared for the actual piece to be a little more balanced. It honestly isn’t, and then there’s this:

All of this means that Jennifer Weiner is an imperfect vessel for confronting sexism in the publishing industry. What it doesn’t mean is that Weiner is unique in her strategy of leveraging critical analysis to self-promote.

Just take in the wording for a second…see if anything jumps out at you in the wording, like, oh, I don’t know: IMPERFECT VESSEL.

Look, I know, I know, there’s a larger point being made, etc., et al., but as a writer, I believe words matter. The choice of words reveals so much here; it is the crux, the entire red effing wheelbarrow of the matter, as far as I’m concerned.

Don’t be an imperfect vessel, kids. Which seems to mean, among other things, don’t self-promote, don’t believe your own work is worth promoting, and for eff’s sake, don’t imply that it’s worthy of critical consideration OR that which books get attention really does often come down to initial perceptions of the people who make those decisions… Perceptions which are undeniably colored by impressions created by the track record/history of the author and the packaging (and I’d include marketing push there). And if you believe that women’s and men’s work are packaged the same, or that women authors whose works are or are perceived to be primarily about and/or for girls or women are on equal ground in this equation, then I have some lovely beachfront property I’d love to sell you with a library full of Franzen the Grouch novels. Just send me a cashier’s check.

Ditto if you believe that women aren’t perceived and treated differently when they  self-promote.

Some people are rubbed the wrong way by Jennifer Weiner, some are some of the time (I agree with her way more often than I don’t and find her frequently hilarious), but what KILLS me about some of the reactions is just how much they are about her. Again, look, I get it, it’s a reaction to a profile piece, also about her. But it is also absolutely typical and predictable to sidestep the points she’s making. It’s far easier to criticize her for self-promoting or talk about her shortcomings—whether perceived or real—than it is to address the substance of her arguments. Her arguments which are not only about the books of Jennifer Weiner.

Who, by the way, is an actual human being and author, not a vessel, perfect or imperfect or otherwise. The very phrasing in that sentence may have been what caused my blood to boil. (By the way, I have enjoyed some other pieces by the writer of the Slate one. Just decidedly not this one.)

Like Weiner, I would love to see more attention devoted to the work of women and especially that perceived to be aimed primarily at women and girls. I read category romance (I LOVE category romance) right beside mainstream literary fiction right beside mystery right beside YA right beside SF and I do my best to judge the books based on their merits. I try not to do that pre-slotting of things into Worthwhile and Not Worthwhile, but make that decision based on the book in question. I know my own likes and dislikes, which means not assuming that because something isn’t my cup of book, it shouldn’t exist or be talked about. This is also not to say that everything is equally “literary,” but there are other measures of worth that are, um, worth discussing, too, and can we just admit that the term itself is pretty squishy and seems to stick to most of the things it’s applied to, as long as the right person is doing the applying?

There are certain kinds of books the word is far less likely to be applied to. Sometimes, that may be because of the quality of the books. Sometimes, it may be for other reasons—lots of them. (I have seen people claim, for instance, that literary YA doesn’t exist. Which is crazypants.)

What I wish as a reader is that I could find more smart writing about all those types of books I mentioned above easily, instead of the typical uninformed scarlet-rage inflammatory or blush-rosy nostalgic pieces about YA, or the terrible pieces implying women who read romance aren’t feminists and all romances are identical, or calling out the one or two SF books this year that stand above the trash heap…. I could go on with examples, but this is getting long and I doubt I need to. This is why I believe blogs are still so important, and why I read so many, and oh romance and YA blogosphere in particular you are THE BEST. You write such smart pieces, about so many different kinds of books, taking them seriously. You talk the things I’m talking about here. But oh how I wish there were more opportunities for you to write about it for professional outlets and be paid.

(Aside: This is one of the main reasons I regretted leaving my regular reviewing gig at Locus. I want to see more women writing about books, period—also why I try to read every word about books people like Laura Miller, Charlie Jane Anders, Annalee Newitz, Sarah Weinman, Roxane Gay, and Carolyn Kellogg produce, to name a handful, in addition to the blogs I follow.)

But, I digress. I wanted to talk a little bit about this idea that self-promotion is somehow inherently shameful or deserving of a call-out, especially when women are engaging in it.

Because at the same time the profile conversation was going on, this week there’s been a bunch of talk in the SFF field about whether people should mention awards-eligible work and the associated discussions about self-promotion that engenders (not an accidental word choice). (Read those links.)

Not too long ago, two fabulous YA authors I consider friends wrote essays about the experience of being a woman writer and self-promoting, about the reactions that they get and see, and how those might be different toward women than men. Here’s Sarah Rees Brennan’s and here’s Malinda Lo’s.

I watched for reactions to these pieces with interest at the time, and I meant to post at length about them, but see above, avoiding rants. While most of the reactions I saw were quite positive, recognizing their valid points, I did also see a few really clueless mansplaining and nasty ones. I won’t point to them, because…reasons, but ugh. Reactions like the one to Weiner in Slate tell the story just fine.

And before it comes up, I am not at all saying that men don’t feel weird about self-promotion too, that they all feel completely comfortable and natural doing it. We’re all humans here. Of course, it feels awkward. It feels awkward when I do it.

I’m also not saying there shouldn’t be a balance, and that it’s not possible to overdo it. It is, of course it is. In my experience, if you’re someone who worries about that, you’re probably not anywhere close to the line.

And yet.

Like most writers I know, I often experience doubts and bouts of imposter syndrome. But at the same time I am proud of my work, and it’s work I, in fact, work really hard on. I want to be able to keep doing it. I also believe that women absolutely should not think twice about self-promotion. All the data suggests it’s harder for the work of women, especially in certain genres, to get attention. That makes self-promoting part of the job for most of us, whether we like it or lump it. So if I catch myself hesitating on a RT or about posting some news related to my own books or trying to get an invite somewhere, I usually go on and do it, because I want to contribute to an online and offline culture where women don’t hesitate and then decide not to speak up about their own work. Speaking up hopefully encourages speaking up. In case it doesn’t: speak up.

Generosity of spirit is where it’s at. Let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt, and stash the judging on this point. I’ve always tried to help draw attention to other people’s work I feel deserves it, but I pledge to do more of that, too.

Mostly, though, let’s all try to call b.s. like this when we see it, by which I mean the attitudes about self-promotion and other things that help preserve the percentages in the VIDA count, that stoke the inequity in certain bestseller lists, and that make women not feel okay about trying to get attention for their work. Let our self-promotion truly be shameless.

End ranty rambling.

Speaking of promo, I’m determined to get a newsletter out something like quarterly this year. The first one will be sometime in the next week or so, and sign up if you want it.

Posted 3 months ago
You cannot with one breath say that you wish more women were recognized for their work, and then say in the next that you think less of people who make others aware of their work.
Amal El-Mohtar [x] (via geardrops)
Posted 3 months ago

http://home-of-amazons.tumblr.com/post/70155154104/drziggystardust-cuculine-drziggystardust

tielan:

gynocraticgrrl:

drziggystardust:

cuculine:

drziggystardust:

appropriately-inappropriate:

myoinositol:

appropriately-inappropriate:

drziggystardust:

image

putmeincoach reblogged your post and added:

Please, list me all of those female architects, scientists and great minds that male architects and scientists ripped off. No, really, I am curious to see all of these female inventors and pioneers you’re speaking of.

Ada Lovelace - Founder of scientific computing, the world’s first computer programmer. Modern computers as we know them wouldn’t exist without her innovations.

Queen Seondeok of Silla - Silla was one of the three kingdoms in Korea’s Three Kingdom period and Seondeok was its first reigning Queen. She is well known for setting up the first astronomy tower in Asia and for founding several Buddhist temples.

Cecilia Payne - Discovered what the sun was made of. Was then prohibited from publishing her work. Henry Norris Russel republished her work as his own and received all the credit. 

Jocelyn Bell Burnell - Discovered the first pulsar. Anthony Hewish took credit and listed her a non involved assistant, he had nothing to do with the discovery. Not only did he receive all the credit, he received the Nobel prize. 

Lise Meitner - Co-discovered nuclear fission and her male colleagues refused to name her in their publication. The men won the Nobel Prize, and she received no credit.  

Nettie Stevens - Discovered chromosomes determined sex, when she sent her work to a man for peer review, he published a book of her work passing it off as his own and named her a technician. 

Marie Curie - Noted Nobel prize laureate (first lady to earn 2), discovered radium. Barred from many prestigious male dominated academic organizations like the French Academy due to being a female. She was demonized and attacked by men all her life simply for being superior to men in the field, and men in general. 

Marie Van Brittan Brown - Co-invented home security surveillance that is the precursor of home security systems today. You wont hear her name in history class, not only is she a woman, she is a black woman. ERASED by nasty white men LIKE YOU. 

Lucy Terry - Another historical black woman, erased by neo-colonialist white men. This young lady was a teenager when she composed the first known work of literature by an African American person. 

Mary Shelley -Invented science fiction. She literally invented a genre of literature, she was a teenager when she wrote her first piece. Across the northern American continent. While she was pregnant.  

Sacagawea - An indigenous American (Lemhi Shoshone) who led Lewis & Clark across the northern American continent. While she was pregnant.

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn - feminist, suffragette, civil rights activist, founded the ACLU

Sarah Parker Remond -worked to desegregate schools and end slavery. Also noted physician- but you wont read about her in your white history books because she is black. Its like you white dudes just threw together some shitty fan fiction and called that history. 

Hedy Lamarr - came up with an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, necessary for wireless communication from the pre-computer age to the present day. She invented your wi-fi in addition to being an actress. SUCK IT. 

Vera Rubin -Rejected from Princeton because she was female, went to Cornell instead and discovered dark matter while earning her PhD. Went on to make contributions that your simpleminded white male self couldn’t begin to fathom. 

This list is just a taste of what women have accomplished. Women invented the core technologies that make civilization possible. This is a not a feminist myth, this is what anthropologists KNOW. Women have made those contributions in spite of astonishing hurdles. Hurdles like not being allowed to go to school, or not being allowed to work in an office with men, or join a professional society, or walk on the street, or own property. Hell, some of these women were legally deemed property, a fraction of a human being.

Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen Catherine the Great, Queen Christina of Sweden, Anacaona of Hispaniola, Hypatia of Athens, Aspasia of Thebes, Dido, Cleopatra, Nefertiti, Nzhinga of Matamba, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Anne Boleyn, Queen Catherine of Spain, Queen Isabella of Castille, Florence Nightingale, Boudicca of the Picts, Hildegard of Bingen, Heloise of Paris, St Theresa of Avila, Theodora of Constantinople, Queen Sybila of Jerusalem, Queen Catherine de Medici, Mirabai of India, Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emmeline Pankhurst, Emily Murphy, Rosa Luxembourg, ArchEmpress Maria Theresa of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire

…..

Did you want more? Those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

aww you put in mirabai :)

and of course…from the sciences…rosalind franklin, jocelyn burnell, ester lederburg, LISE MEITNER, mathilde krim, and countless, countless others (did you know that menten of michaelis-menten was a woman?); these are just from the west; this doesn’t count women elsewhere who are trafficked and raped from birth instead of being allowed to explore their potential in the sciences. here’s a list of indian women overshadowed in the sciences. if women’s potential in the sciences were fulfilled and nurtured and credit duly given then it would probably change the world as we know it overnight. 

Of course! Theology was a major area of philosophical study, and from what I read, she was very knowledgeable And any woman who survives three assassination attempts (iirc? I know there was more than just the one) is p badass. Also women have always had a place in the sciences. We were the first computer programmers, telephone technicians and medical professionals (rural women figured out how to prevent smallpox hundreds of years before Germ Theory or the concept of inoculation was a thing). Haven’t died of smallpox recently? You’re welcome. <3 

You ladies are amazing! All this history, our history off the top of your head!

image

 Thank you both, this is exactly what I was trying to convey to this ignorant dudebro. Who has yet to respond, btw. 

From Ada Lovelace to Grace Hopper, computers owe everything to women. All six “human computers” working on the famous ENIAC machine were women, and isn’t it funny how people nowadays have some sort of idea of what ENIAC was but not who maintained it?  In fact, computer programming, especially software programming, used to be considered a woman’s jobThey were still paid less than the men who were also in the fieldBut they still did it better.

The first person to crack part of the German Enigma cypher was a woman we only know today as Mrs BB Her solution was dismissed as being too simplistic, though she turned out to be correct.  But we still don’t know her name.  She worked at Bletchley Park, home of the UK’s cryptographers before and during WWII - most of the people working there were women (I’ve seen it as high as estimating 80% women)One of them, Mavis Batey, died a couple weeks ago, in fact.  She decoded the Italian navy Enigma cypher - AT NINETEEN.

Also, to throw in some of my other favorite ladies that I don’t see listed so far: Simone de Beauvoir, Émilie du Châtelet, Princess Elisabeth of the Palantine, Sofia Vasilyevna Kovalevskaya, Emmy Noether…  I could go on and on.  All sorts of brilliant ladies who directly influenced men we cherry pick from history (Voltaire, Sartre, etc.) or whose accomplishments we’ve forgotten despite their value have existed throughout time, everywhere and every place.

Oh look, more erased women who built civilization as we know it! What would women do without men to steal our discoveries and take credit for them? IDK thrive, probably

Sadly, the greatest threat to women through all ages has always been men and prejudice.

Posted 3 months ago

Ani DiFranco has cancelled the Righteous Retreat

annaham:

More info on her Facebook page, along with this update.

It’s good that she cancelled the retreat, but (IMHO) two crucial words appear to be missing from her update: I’m sorry. It would be GREAT if she could acknowledge all of the shit that her “supporters” have heaped on the black women and other folks who said “hey, there is a HUGE problem with holding this retreat of yours on a plantation" during the past couple of days.

I’d also tread carefully when it comes to reading the comments on her post—there are quite a few “omg how DARE those oversensitive people have problems with your super-cool retreat!!1” things going on.

Posted 3 months ago
edwardspoonhands:

cassandracroft:

So this is what trust looks like.

Funny, my first thought was “So this is what the patriarchy looks like.”

edwardspoonhands:

cassandracroft:

So this is what trust looks like.

Funny, my first thought was “So this is what the patriarchy looks like.”

(Source: deletethefeeling)