Paranoia and Pop Tarts, but you know how we roll

Posts tagged feminism

1,730 notes

Here’s the thing: I absolutely do believe that a 15 year old’s possible path to feminism could conceivably be Beyonce’s “Flawless” to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s works to bell hooks, to “when chickenheads come home to roost” to the Crunk Feminist Collective blog, to Beverly Guy Sheftall’s “Words of Fire” and so on and so on…Yup, I believe it could go down exactly like that.
Joan Morgan, black feminist and author of When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost (via ethiopienne)

(Source: ethiopienne, via glossylalia)

Filed under feminism

9,632 notes

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.
Why ‘White Feminism’ isn’t effective Feminism (via mscoolcat)

(via barrelfish)

Filed under feminism

894 notes

Sex-Positive Feminism, as I frame it, is a marginalised, progressive force which is present-day. It is a feminist tendency which aims to fight the shaming of women and a woman’s right to independence as a sexual actor. As such, its obvious enemy is sex-moralism, which it directly opposes. And its subtle enemy is compulsory sexuality, which may easily coopt it. The job of fighting sex-moralism is straightforward if not easy. The job of resisting cooption by compulsory sexuality is extremely challenging and requires sisterhood and cooperation with sex-negative feminists. Unfortunately, many sex-positive feminists conflate sex moralism with sex-negative feminism and fight them both, leaving them wide open to being coopted into the service of compulsory sexuality.



Sex-Negative Feminism is a marginalised, progressive force which dates from the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 60s and continues to the present day. It is a feminist tendency which speaks honestly about the hard knot of sex, power and violence formed by male supremacy and which aims to liberate women from sexual violence and compulsory sex. As such, its obvious enemy is compulsory sexuality, which it opposes openly. Sex moralism appropriates some sex-negative feminist language in its abstinence and anti-sexualisation advocacy but sex-negative feminists do not support the way it uses the language to make antifeminist arguments. Sex-negative feminism’s most complex struggle is with sex-positive feminism, which does not need to be an enemy. As sex-negative feminism does not advocate shaming or controlling women, sex-positive feminism does not need to oppose it on these grounds. But when sex-positive feminism is coopted by and advocates for compulsory sexuality, sex-negative feminism must resist, as compulsory sexuality under male supremacy is compulsory violence against women.

The Ethical Prude: Imagining An Authentic Sex Negative Feminism by A Radical TransFeminist (via friendlyangryfeminist)

I know a lot of people hate radical feminism, but there are some folks (like the author of this piece) who have been trying to reclaim the more worthwhile parts from the scumbaggery. This is a long, but excellent piece and definitely worth reading.

(via downlo)

(Source: fauxcyborg, via downlo)

Filed under feminism sexuality reblog for future reading

2 notes

My paper is about

Is it better to organize your politics around identity or your “relation to power”? Feminism, for example:

  • who does feminism represent? women?
  • but how do you define women? who counts? who gets to decide who counts?
  • if women are people who face oppression by men, that’s way too broad because men can and do oppress other men, and being defined by your oppression isn’t very empowering
  • when does intersectionality come into play? which identity comes to the forefront at which times?
  • can you be all things (politically speaking) at all times and successfully organize that way?

Basically, saying “this group is for women” can be too broad to do any good and too many people’s needs can get ignored (women’s rights! but lesbians you’re being distracting and your unpopularity is bringing us down. GLBT rights! but wait your turn trans ppl, we can only focus on so many issues at a time), but there is strength in numbers.

Is it worth the trade off? Is fighting the general powers that be too wide a shot to be effective? Do we go by the ideal and consider all aspects of a person, or do we trim the edges a bit to streamline the progress process?

(Input is quite welcome.)

Filed under feminism school identity politics yo they're butt but they can be powerful

962 notes

[W]e’re not really equal when we’re STILL supposed to uncritically and obediently cheer when white women are praised for winning “women’s rights,” and to painfully forget the Indigenous women and women of colour who were hurt in that same process. We are not equal when in the name of “feminism” so-called “women’s only” spaces are created and get to police and regulate who is and isn’t a woman based ontheir interpretation of your body parts and gender presentation, and not your own. We are not equal when initatives to support gender equality have reverted yet again to “saving” people and making decisions for them, rather than supporting their right to self-determination, whether it’s engaging in sex work or wearing a niqab. So when feminism itself has become it’s own form of oppression, what do we have to say about it? […]
jessica yee, [feminism for real: deconstructing the academic industrial complex of feminism] (via newanddifferentsun)(via therapsida)(via rebelrebelbatcat)(via darkjez)

(Source: theoceanandthesky, via bubonickitten)

Filed under feminism intersectionality

374 notes

Amy was in the middle of some such nonsense with Seth Meyers across the table and she did something vulgar as a joke. Jimmy Fallon, who was arguably the star of the show at that time, turned to her, and in a faux squeamish voice said, “Stop that! It’s not cute, I don’t like it!” Amy dropped was she was doing, went black in the eyes for a second, and wheeled around on him, “I don’t fucking care if you like it.” Jimmy was visibly startled. Amy went right back to enjoying her ridiculous bit. I should make it clear that Amy and Jimmy are very good friends and there was never any real beef between them (insert penis joke here). With that exchange, a cosmic shift took place. Amy made it clear that she wasn’t there to be cute, she wasn’t there to play wives and girlfriends in the boys’ scenes… she was there to do what she wanted to do and she did not fucking care if you liked it. I think of this whenever someone says to me, “Jerry Lewis says women aren’t funny,” or “Christopher Hitchens says women aren’t funny,” or “Richard Fenderman says women aren’t funny… Do you have anything to say to that?” Yes. We don’t fucking care if you like it. Unless one of these men is my boss, which none of them is, it’s irrelevant. It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don’t like something, it is empirically not good. I don’t like Chinese food, but I don’t write articles trying to prove it doesn’t exist.
Tina Fey, Bossypants, “I Don’t Care If You Like It: One in a Series of Love Letters to Amy Poehler” (via charlotte-charles)

(via downlo)

Filed under women in comedy comedy feminism tina fey amy poehler

27 notes

feministdykeslut:

youarenotyou:

feministslut:

feministdykeslut:

Honestly disrespect towards a fellow feminist is not only immature it is outright counter productive towards any kind of social change.

Yes, feministslut I am talking to you. Your so called rolling of the eyes does nothing for feminist movement except to cause fights within it. I was simply stating that women’s rights is a term that can be exclusive, and we don’t need to use the term in order to focus on humanizing women. I refuse to exclude non binary people.

And I refuse to throw “women’s rights” away when it has and continues to be a way for women to understand their oppression. I’m not going to force women to get a new vocabulary to understand their oppression because it doesn’t describe every single persons oppression. 

If you think feminist haven’t been fighting within the movement since it began, you might want to check our history. We have not been a unified movement, ever. We will never be a unified movement and I am okay with that. 

wowww.  

you can take your “i don’t have to include every single form of oppression” and SHOVE IT. i am so SICK of privileged feminists using this phrase as a way to avoid taking responsibility for being oppressive. just a few days ago a white feminist said this exact same thing to “explain” why she was pretending that white-women-only statistics represented all women. you’re treating intersectionality as this incredibly inconvenient and difficult task to consider—women have to learn a whole new vocabulary!—just like every other feminist before you that refuses to be held accountable for the oppression they perpetuate.

and i hear it every.goddamn.time. a feminist is called out on being racist, ableist, classist, binarist, or cissexist because god forbid you give a damn about marginalization that doesn’t affect you personally. like it’s some kind of unreasonable demand to expect feminists to acknowledge that sexism and misogyny impact more than just cis binary white middle-class able-bodied western women. we’re not even asking you to fight for us. just fucking recognize that we exist, but no, you can’t even do such a simple thing. 

and. you’re totally okay with oppression happening within the feminist movement? real nice. it’s disgusting that you feel so comfortable stating this openly and claim “well i never said i was radical” as a cop out. it’s not “radical” to make an effort to not be an oppressive dick, it’s called basic human decency. really, this speaks volumes about where your priorities lie. your suggestion to check out the history of feminism is actually pretty accurate seeing as how this second-wave bullshit you’re spouting fits right in with feminism’s past and present as a tool of oppression. gross.

this is why i love youarenotyou

(via feistyfeminist)

Filed under reblog for commentary intersectionality feminism

60 notes

Can any feminist out there explain Topless Tuesday or posting naked models as “reclaiming” something? I’m a feminist and I’m confused at this new trend.

unbrokencircle:

thefremen:

amen-ramen:

To me it seems like objectification by women, but I KNOW that can’t be the case because some awesome feminists have started doing this. I need a feminist perspective on this please?

(reblogging so someone can explain. Obviously, I’m cool with posting myself because I hate my body and it’s awesome to hear how attractive and acceptable it is)

I wrote a post about this a while back, but basically, if you want to post pictures of your body on the Internet, it’s your body and you have the right to choose what you want to do with it. Period. End of story. It doesn’t matter if you’re doing it because you think it will make you feel better about your body, if you’re doing it because you think nudity shouldn’t be intrinsically sexual, if you’re doing it because you want to sell content on other sites, or if you’re doing it because you want more followers. Criticizing other people’s judgments about what they do with their bodies isn’t feminism, IMO.

That’s not to say that no one ever feels pressured by Topless Tuesday to take pictures when they don’t really want to, or there are never times when people who post pictures of themselves feel objectified. I just think that criticizing the people who post pictures of themselves is not a very useful strategy in fighting those forces. Instead of wondering why those people are posting pictures of themselves and whether they are being good feminists, if you want to fight that objectification why not start interrogating the people who are constantly demanding tt pix, even when people have explicitly stated they don’t want to post them? Why not focus your questioning on the people who reblog those pictures, delete the original commentary, and replace it with their own objectifying commentary?

(Source: , via queerthanks)

Filed under topless tuesday feminism