The following is cross-posted from the Damsel in de Tech blog. Click here to see the original.
I was going to just press "Publish" and let that title stand alone.
After all, there's really not much else to be said about it. If the
Men's Rights Activists were really, sincerely invested in caring for men
and improving their lives, they would do something proactive like, say,
holding fundraising drives to establish intimate partner violence
shelters for men, and/or promoting and advocating expansion of services
for male survivors of sexual violence, and/or working with organizations
like OCAP to address male homelessness.
You don't have to operate under a feminist banner to effect positive
change in your community and to make things happen. But, golly, you do
have to actually put in a lot of hours, and your own blood, sweat,
tears, and money to really move mountains.
Arguing on the internet can be productive and useful, considering that
you are most likely interacting with other humans on the other end, but
that's not the end of it. Not by a long shot.
You want people to take you seriously, MRAs? How about you show us that
you actually give a crap about helping your fellow dudes by actually
doing something to help them.
Are there any MRA campaigns you're aware of that are doing tangible,
productive things for your community? Please let me know so I can put my
support behind them.
(Spoiler alert: if your evidence of their activity is one of their
poster campaigns, I will laugh you off of the internet. Trolling IRL is
not activism)
Showing posts with label bullying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bullying. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
Sunday, 9 March 2014
Another International Misogyny Day
So yesterday was International Women's Day. Or, as I am now calling, International Be A Misogynist Asshat Day. Literally every man I was in contact with yesterday pulled some misogynist asshattery. Every single one.
Actual quotes include: "Happy IWD! I support you!", from my roommate to his male friends. And, later, "It's just a joke, get over it!". When you are using "woman" as an insult in and of itself, that is misogyny. Your joke was that being a woman is an insult. I don't need to just get over it, you need to not be an asshole. You have 364 days, I have one. Is it so much more than I deserve that you must ruin it every year?
And from the dude who asked my opinion of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, "Perhaps watch it again, through to that salient point.". Perhaps if you ask for my opinion you should not tell me I'm feminist wrong and dismiss what I have said in its entirety. The Dove campaign, and Unilever, are terrible. They are cashing in, or trying to cash in, on the insecurities that media has thrust upon women in the first place, and their other products and advertising are deeply racist and misogynist. I'm not going to fall over myself to congratulate them for wrapping up misogyny in a prettier package. As for any actual issue they address, they've been addressed. Jean Kilbourne. You should probably Google her if you in fact want to be an ally and understand the impact of media on self esteem.
These are not the only examples, they are simply the ones that were the worst and most insulting because they were unexpected.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Was that a duck?
The following is cross-posted from the Damsel in de Tech blog. Click here to see the original.
Pop quiz! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a __________.
Can you spot the duck?
To break it down for the uninitiated, when talking about issues including sexual violence and victim-blaming, etc, often we hear the aforementioned justification of "if it looks like a duck." Insert for "duck" anything ranging from slut, whore, n*****, f**, etc.
As you can see, it's not even straight-forward to describe a duck. Is it the bill? Is it the feathers? The affinity for water? Are loons ducks? Are geese just a tall and lankey species ducks? Do all ducks quack?
When it comes to women and the label "slut" (as just one possible example), it's even more complicated. Women and girls are frequently labelled sluts for every manner of perceived indiscretion, from the length of their shorts or skirts, amount of skin shown, number of sexual partners they're perceived to have had (real or imagined, really doesn't matter when slut-shaming), how they carry themselves, their profession, their hairstyle, their makeup, their height, their weight, their breastsize, colour of their skin (racism and exoticism of women of colour is a huge factor), who they associate with and family makeup (if one of their friends or family members has been labelled a 'slut', so much easier to label them as such), if they're perceived as flirty (again - reality doesn't matter so much as perception), marital status, etc etc etc.
This isn't hyperbole. This is what women and girls and queer not non-gendery-binary persons experience. Anyone who declares that there is a solid definition of whom can reasonably be labelled with a slur against their sexuality and that the lines aren't easily blurred to envelope whomever the slur-slinger wants to slander, is either blissfully ignorant or a baldfaced liar.
And, even if one happens to fall under the so-broad-as-to-be-meaningless definitions of slut, what then? If you are saying that sluts get treated as such, then you must have some idea as to what that treatment entails. And, here's a hint, it often involves violence.
If you aren't saying that you are sanctioning sexual violence against any one of the myriad of persons who, at one point or another in their lives or the course of a week, could be called a slut, then you really need to think more deeply about your words and their implications. Words matter. Words have meaning. Words can make the difference between supporting survivors of sexual violence or of supporting rapists.
Please think about your words and their implications, because they matter.
Pop quiz! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a __________.
Can you spot the duck?
Yup. Definitely a duck. Look at that perfect example of a duck. I've got my eye on you, duck.
Uh... yeah. Still a duck. Just, like, with a nose job or something.
Ah, there we go. Back to the definitive duck-action.
Uh... heh. Ok, you got me. It's a goose. But geese are like ducks, so nice try.
Ye-ah... ok, so it's a swan. Point taken. Still, it could break your arm if you went up to it and called it a duck, so it's up to the swan to differentiate itself from ducks.
Ok, that's just mean. Yes, it's a duck even if it has mobility issues and can't walk quite like other ducks. Geez.
Uh... that's a movie character. It's some dude dressed up as a duck with animatronics and stuff.
Now you're just being sarcastic.
Ok, ok, I get it. Some animals have duck-like qualities and are otherwise totally not duckish at all.
.... you don't have to be rude ....
What the... what end is the...
To break it down for the uninitiated, when talking about issues including sexual violence and victim-blaming, etc, often we hear the aforementioned justification of "if it looks like a duck." Insert for "duck" anything ranging from slut, whore, n*****, f**, etc.
As you can see, it's not even straight-forward to describe a duck. Is it the bill? Is it the feathers? The affinity for water? Are loons ducks? Are geese just a tall and lankey species ducks? Do all ducks quack?
When it comes to women and the label "slut" (as just one possible example), it's even more complicated. Women and girls are frequently labelled sluts for every manner of perceived indiscretion, from the length of their shorts or skirts, amount of skin shown, number of sexual partners they're perceived to have had (real or imagined, really doesn't matter when slut-shaming), how they carry themselves, their profession, their hairstyle, their makeup, their height, their weight, their breastsize, colour of their skin (racism and exoticism of women of colour is a huge factor), who they associate with and family makeup (if one of their friends or family members has been labelled a 'slut', so much easier to label them as such), if they're perceived as flirty (again - reality doesn't matter so much as perception), marital status, etc etc etc.
This isn't hyperbole. This is what women and girls and queer not non-gendery-binary persons experience. Anyone who declares that there is a solid definition of whom can reasonably be labelled with a slur against their sexuality and that the lines aren't easily blurred to envelope whomever the slur-slinger wants to slander, is either blissfully ignorant or a baldfaced liar.
And, even if one happens to fall under the so-broad-as-to-be-meaningless definitions of slut, what then? If you are saying that sluts get treated as such, then you must have some idea as to what that treatment entails. And, here's a hint, it often involves violence.
If you aren't saying that you are sanctioning sexual violence against any one of the myriad of persons who, at one point or another in their lives or the course of a week, could be called a slut, then you really need to think more deeply about your words and their implications. Words matter. Words have meaning. Words can make the difference between supporting survivors of sexual violence or of supporting rapists.
Please think about your words and their implications, because they matter.
Labels:
bullying,
clothes,
Damsel in de Tech,
harassment,
just world hypothesis,
lgbtq,
lies,
misogyny,
oppression,
rape apology,
rape culture,
rape myths,
rapists,
sexism,
sexual violence,
slut-shaming
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
In Queer US News
(Content Warning - Violence, Holocaust)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

