And please leave suggestions for topics for future posts in the Babe, is this Sexist? Series.
You can do so by leaving messages here or in the masterpost.
By tweeting us @FemArmRegime #babeisthissexist?
Sunday, 25 August 2013
Babe, Is This Sexist? - Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines.
Thursday, 22 August 2013
Babe, is this Sexist? - Blurred Lines
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
Speaking Feminism: The Whom Rule
by Eudaimonatrix)
[trigger warning: domestic violence, sexual
harassment]
[trigger warning: stark and explicit references
to domestic violence] Awhile ago I saw a great TED Talk by Jackson
Katz called: Violence against women—it's a men's issue. Go watch it now. I’ll
wait.
[waits for 18
minutes, or, if you want to see where I’m going here, for a couple minutes
while you watch starting at about the 2:28 mark]
In the video, the
speaker uses grammar to elegantly illustrate how objectification
and victim
blaming work, and are desperately inter-related. His illustration centers
on simple sentence construction: how the way we use the subject and the object
in a sentence send radical signals about how we’re thinking about
accountability, agency, and domestic and sexual violence.
Today’s comic from
The Oatmeal is also grammatical: How and why to use “who” and “whom”
in a sentence. I usually get a kick
out of The Oatmeal’s grammar humour, and this comic is no exception (I don’t
know why unwashed koalas are funny, but man, the lols…). The grammar tip
basically boils down to
Whom = enquiries
about the object (him in a properly constructed sentence)
Who = enquiries
about the subject (he_ in a properly constructed sentence)
Handy tip. Now I know how to keep who and whom straight. AND….[drum roll] how to tell if you’re objectifying or victim-blaming someone using grammar!
The ‘subject’ in a
sentence is the ‘doer.’ They have the agency (and are ostensibly accountable
for the action taking place).
For example:
DudeBro shouted “nice
tits!” at the Stranger.
Who shouted? DudeBro, the subject. Whom was sexually harassed? The
Stranger, the object of the sexual harassment, whom you (depending on who you are) feel sympathetic
towards, angry on behalf of, or entitled to bother.
Passerby intervenes, by telling Dudebro “yo, Dudebro, not
cool. Not a consent-based interaction,
man.”
Who intervened?
Passerby, the subject doing the talking. Whom
got told? Dudebro, the object. Notice
how in this case the Passerby is brave, and the one in control?
“Whatever, [insert homophobic expletive]. She’s got great
tits, and she should cover up if they’re not for me to compliment,” sayeth DudeBro.
Now, here’s an interesting one. The DudeBro is a subject in
that he said the thing.
However, let’s look at what he said. It’s not easy to pick out from the
sentence construction (simple sentences are usually subject-verb-object, as in
the first 2 here). So let’s use the who=he (and I) and whom=him (and me) rule.
She is the
subject. She is the one who has something and should do something.
Me (in this case, Dudebro me) is the object. Her doing something (or not doing something)
has an effect on him.
Who is in
the wrong? She is (yep, the
Stranger is a she – go figure).
According to whom?
Dudebro, who implies through his sentence structure that her appearance in a
public space affects him.
Presto. See what
happened there? The Stranger is objectified. Then Dudebro (who objectified her
in the first instance) is challenged to be accountable for his behavior, and
turns the Stranger into the subject so that he can blame her for the action
being challenged. Hopefully the scene continues with Dudebro getting an eloquent can of rhetorical whoop-ass getting poured all over him, but we'll leave that up to your imagination, dear readers.
Easter egg time! The thing that got me thinking about this originally was that the whom-him mnemonic doesn't work for 'her.' As a matter of fact, that shortcut would be whor-her. Telling, no?
(Note: Mat Inman & The Oatmeal have been the source of some really sexist
“humour” and rape “jokes”
in the past, and the comic I link to above actually has a tangential joke about
sexual harassment in it that relies on the old “dudes who harass women are just
socially awkward, you guyz” standby). I’m still a fan – albeit a critical one.
My complicated relationship with sexist media will be something to get into another
day).
Friday, 2 August 2013
The UK Porn Filter: The Plaster Over the Wound?
By: Suk Maklitt
The UK porn filter is a topic causing a lot of debate. It’s one I’m hesitant to comment on not because I have nothing to say on it but because I probably have too much. Where do I start? Well, maybe I’ll start with what I won’t discuss and that’s the censorship/ free speech/ technical issue. I think that’s been covered by enough people.
So, I want to ask is, will this UK porn filter achieve anything beneficial? Abusive porn will be blocked? Sounds good to many (me included) but what will doing so achieve? Will people stop creating abusive porn and images? Will rape culture dissolve overnight? Will paedophilia? Will sexual objectification? Will sexism? Will our relationships magically improve? Will everyone suddenly become respectful of one another’s bodily autonomy and sexuality? No, that would be ridiculous. So what I’ve been thinking about is how a UK porn filter is like sticking a plaster over a gaping, infected, oozing, maggot-riddled wound.
Abusive porn and images do not exist in a vacuum but, rather, sit on the extreme end of a spectrum. A spectrum we are all familiar with although we may not recognise all its elements’ true toxic nature, like certain romantic comedies or Page 3 or MTV or, even, Disney. Abusive porn exists because people move up and up and up that spectrum, from the seemingly innocuous to the mild to the obviously harmful, until they reach those pornographic extremes. It’s an insidious spectrum we’re exposed to daily and it saturates our entire culture. Simply hiding the abusive porn will never remove that spectrum just like hiding symptoms of radiation poisoning won’t remove the risk of others becoming exposed to the same radioactive source.
Additionally, there are the claims that such filters will block out feminist porn, LGBTQ-friendly porn, sex advice, relationship advice, educational materials, forums for sexual assault survivors, etc. It will, inadvertently, censor education and social progression. This fact becomes more terrifying when you realise the internet - despite its many dark, shadowy corners - is currently the greatest source of sex and relationship advice for children and teenagers (and, actually, even adults) we have. To describe school sex education as ‘lacking’ would be exceedingly generous. Sex education in the UK barely covers the basics. I don’t know about you but I distinctly remember a teacher telling us during sex ed class that only “silly girls” got themselves pregnant whilst still attending school. That’s practically state-sanctioned slut-shaming.
Despite these failings, when given the chance to improve the situation in June this year by implementing mandatory and comprehensive sex and relationship education in state schools, the majority of the ConDems voted against. Why? Presumably under another misguided attempt to protect children. There is contradiction in our society where unhealthy sexual imagery such as objectification is constantly thrust in people’s faces but healthy, body-positive sex and discussions of can be taboo; the former is so prolific we’re accustomed to viewing it whilst the latter’s liberal inclusivity and often anti-oppressive nature threatens the status quo and thus appears dangerously revolutionary. One of the biggest issues here, as I see it, is this erroneous conflation of healthy sex and unhealthy sex as one big, bad, dangerous package which should be kept out of the reach of children, at all costs, lest it corrupt their sparkling innocence. Well, too late. Look around. Unhealthy sexual images are everywhere and they are not just relegated to those dark, shadowy corners of the internet that the government think they can block off. Adults and children alike are absorbing these unhealthy messages every day through television, cinema, newspapers, peers, parents, fashion, music, advertisements… like I said, everywhere! This is the reason why abuse is prolific. This is the reason why abusive porn exists. This is what’s enabling abusers. An internet filter will benefit no one because refusing to address problems will never make them go away.
Isn't it about time the government realised there is no greater filter than education?
Thursday, 11 July 2013
Don't be that Guy gets a Makeover, and it's bad news
On the idea that "Don't Be That Guy" victimizes men by being sexist:
1) Most sexual assault perpetrators are men. (Note: this is not the same thing as saying that most men are perpetrators).
2) Men are more likely to be sexually assaulted by other men than they are by women (Note: this is not the same thing as saying that women do not sexually assault men)
3) Feeling "insulted" by some posters is not the same thing as feeling oppressed or threatened by the world you live in, and is certainly not the same thing as being sexually assaulted. (Note: Women are often the victims of those last 3 things, and are more often the victims of those three things than men. This is not the same thing as saying men are never the victims of those things).Therefore, those posters were trying to reach a target audience informed by statistics - that audience being male perpetrators of sexual violence, or their male friends who might be able to intervene before they commit sexual assault. Not a perpetrator? Ignore the poster - just like you can ignore posters directed at women telling them to buy tampons. Not friends with perpetrators? That's great - ignore the posters.
Of reported sexual assaults, between 2 and 4 percent are found to be false accusations. Sure. HOWEVER, sexual assaults are dramatically under-reported compared to other crimes, so the number of false accusations compared to the number of sexual assaults that actually happen is WAY less than, say the number of murders committed versus the number of false accusations of murder.Man or woman, you are far, FAR more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault than you are to be falsely accused of one - cracking down on the problem that people actually commit sexual assaults is a touch more likely to positively affect large numbers of people than cracking down on the number of people who make false accusations (a problem the system is already relatively good at catching).Maybe we should try 'raising awareness' of that.
On Paula Simons' column (via a facebook discussion)
I agree with quite a bit of what she has to say, but disagree with her narrative swap - the narrative in the 'Don't be that Guy' posters is about focusing on the perpetrator as the person responsible for stopping sexual assault, and she plays into why that's (tragically) novel and important by jumping on the 'yeah, but...' train that almost inevitably shows up when anyone tries to assert that "rapists cause rapes. Period." Rapists cause rapes. "Yeah, but, what about the behaviour of the victim?" is not a constructive question to ask, and will not help end sexual violence.
I also resent her generalization that young women who drink too much do it so that the feel comfortable having sex they don't want to have. I get that she's critiquing that as a social structure problem we're all responsible for and would benefit from fixing, but it's a disingenuous red herring to raise here. Don't Be that Guy's aim (while imperfectly executed) is to clearly state that perpetrators cause sexual violence, not victims. Don't Be that Girl seeks to put the blame right back on the victims - "you're responsible for your own sexual assault and furthermore, you're probably a liar." They're not equally flawed messages - Don't be that Girl is worse.
I also resent her generalization that young women who drink too much do it so that the feel comfortable having sex they don't want to have. I get that she's critiquing that as a social structure problem we're all responsible for and would benefit from fixing, but it's a disingenuous red herring to raise here. Don't Be that Guy's aim (while imperfectly executed) is to clearly state that perpetrators cause sexual violence, not victims. Don't Be that Girl seeks to put the blame right back on the victims - "you're responsible for your own sexual assault and furthermore, you're probably a liar." They're not equally flawed messages - Don't be that Girl is worse.
On the broader issue of how victim-blaming hurts us all (private facebook chat)
One of the really big problems with blaming victims is that no one has anyway of telling who the rapists are. They look just like anyone else. So advice to "protect yourself" (typically directed at women) is basically saying "protect yourself from all the men, and especially the men you know the best" (your likeliest rapist) . Flip side of same coin: men who get abused and raped are assumed to have failed to defend themselves from something they should have "easily" been able to stop. Which is just as horrible a thing to say. Talking up false accusations makes all that worse - it brings up an INCREDIBLY rare issue that serves to reinforce the idea that all kinds of sexual assault are less common and more likely to be falsely reported than they actually are.
One of the really big problems with blaming victims is that no one has anyway of telling who the rapists are. They look just like anyone else. So advice to "protect yourself" (typically directed at women) is basically saying "protect yourself from all the men, and especially the men you know the best" (your likeliest rapist) . Flip side of same coin: men who get abused and raped are assumed to have failed to defend themselves from something they should have "easily" been able to stop. Which is just as horrible a thing to say. Talking up false accusations makes all that worse - it brings up an INCREDIBLY rare issue that serves to reinforce the idea that all kinds of sexual assault are less common and more likely to be falsely reported than they actually are.
The result: when a woman gets up the courage to honestly (as opposed to falsely) accuse someone of rape, it isn't usually "send that bastard to jail!" It's usually "what were you wearing/you were drunk/why were you out alone/you deserved it you slut."
And for male victims it's just as bad, if not worse.
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
It's Patriarchy, it's Misogyny but it's NOT MISANDRY.
By: Violet Paradox
To those men who think misandry is on par with misogyny, I ask you - How has misandry affected your opportunities in life? The fact that some women find you or other men personally deplorable does nothing to take away from the privileges of being male in this world. Yes there are some women who hate men, it's a natural response to a society that consistently and continually reinforces the message that women are inferior and worthless, where women are raped, beaten and abused in numbers wildly disproportionate to men, told we are sluts for daring to own our own sexuality, wear the clothes we want, speak our mind, for just being a woman. When everywhere we look we see women being objectified, sexualised, expected to live up to unrealistic beauty ideals. Shamed if we're thin, shamed if we're fat, shamed if we choose to let our body hair grow naturally or fucking dare to have the audacity to grow older and then shamed again if we give in to the pressure this expectation of perfection creates and cut ourselves to pieces trying to obtain the unobtainable.
To those men who label it misandry when men are portrayed as bumbling and incompetent in domestic matters such as running a household and raising children, who complain about the social expectations of the dating scene, ie; who pays for dinner, the issues involving child custody, and the harmful stereotypes of masculinity which stifles men from fully expressing themselves and their emotions for fear of being labelled as weak, these are in actual fact, effects of patriarchy. It's been said before, but I will say it again, patriarchy hurts men too. The same hateful system, that although ultimately benefits men and oppresses women, does have negative side effects which are felt by men. It's something that feminism does address when discussing the effects of patriarchy and women's oppression and it is real, but it is NOT MISANDRY.
Also, is it surprising that like men, women internalise the messages of patriarchy? Just as a woman may internalise the expected behaviours and stereotypes for women that patriarchy teaches, she does likewise with the messages patriarchy reinforces about men. It is still misogyny when she expects you to pay for her dinner, open doors for her, judges you for not being the 'manly man' by daring to be vulnerable and show emotion. It is crappy, unpleasant behaviour but it is NOT MISANDRY.
Unlike misandry, misogyny has very serious and damaging effects for women. It's what fosters rape culture which excuses sexual violence and other abuses towards women by calling on harmful stereotypes and myths that are used to blame victims and hold them responsible for their own attacks and rapes. The pervasiveness of rape culture promotes such a fear in women that it restricts their ability to move freely in the world. Misogyny restricts women's careers and earning potential, especially in male dominated professions and work environments. And professions that are typically female dominated are held in lesser regard by society and remunerated accordingly. Then there is the Madonna/Whore complex which polices women's sexuality by basing a woman's value on her sexual status. Slut shaming plays on this. It is used to excuse all matters of crimes against women and also as a powerful silencing tool, as many women will go out of their way to avoid labels like, 'slut' and 'whore'. Misogyny is restricting, oppressive and dangerous for women and sometimes men. Misandry might hurt your feelings, but it's unlikely to turn your whole world upside down.
Image courtesy of [Salvatore Vuono] / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Saturday, 8 June 2013
Choice, Motherhood, and Being a Woman.
By: Liberate Zealot
Sometimes it is difficult for me to reconcile my feminist identity with that of me as a part of my family. Other times it's it nearly impossible to reconcile my upbringing with that of a woman (in the United States).
No matter the aspect of myself, or my actions and beliefs, there seems to be an incongruence. This touches every part of my life, but for most it is the idea that my identity as a person is not completely recognized, within society or even my family.
I imagine this is a recognition many people experience. Those of us who are in some way outside, be it because we're queer, or people of color, or disabled, and non-Christian or women. And rebelling against the established norms only exacerbates our lack or personhood and belonging.
So often society/politics/my family makes me feel incomplete. A not fully actualized version of a person. And oddly enough it is my upbringing that makes me able to recognize this incongruence.
I was brought up to be opinionated; and confident in my voice and experience and opinions. I was brought up to see myself as a being of worth, as a full and independent entity. And yet, as I age, that full and independent worth and identity is stripped from me.
Once upon a time I saw myself with children, even if I never had a partner. But as I've left my upper middle class upbringing, and as political and social spheres has turned more pro-fetus and anti-woman, I've experienced a great change in that regard. Now I know I'll never be willingly pregnant or a mother. And when I expressed that to my (mainly feminist) parents the question wasn't centered around what had made me change my mind, but what my male partner thought of this. As if my decisions about my body and life were incomplete without a man's opinion.
And I have a brother who goes to pro-life marches and studies to become a priest in the Catholic Church. And I have so many other family members who seeks to do right and help others but cannot conceive an existence of worth without it being one in line with their own views and beliefs.
And these views and beliefs are the ones that say I should be incomplete without offering up my body and life to motherhood. That my male partner is the primary actor in our partnership. That to be a true women I must be a mother. And that to be a mother I must sacrifice all for my children. And that my body, mind, and desires are secondary to that.
And so many of them cannot understand my virulent objection of these ideas.
They cannot understand that my primary objective to motherhood is that of being unwilling to sacrifice my personhood. Instead they convince themselves that it is about a lack of love and understanding of children (despite my decade of work with children).
I cannot conceive of being pregnant in a country where so many people prize the life and humanity of a pregnant person as secondary to the fetus they willingly (or unwillingly) carry. And that this is a devaluation of humanity that only effects pregnant people. No one else is expected to sacrifice their organs or living conditions for another person.
And I cannot conceive of being a parent, a mother, in a world that devalues mothers. Where father's are praised where mothers in the same situations are hated and mocked. Where women are hated for being working mothers, or for needing more than motherhood to experience a complete life.
I am a person, a human, first and foremost. And many aspects of my identity means that society seeks to take that personhood away from me. And I cannot imagine willingly ceding more of my personhood.
Some people must give up parts of their personhood to live the lives they want, and I cannot blame them for such. Certainly I have done the same in different areas. Some do not see these identities or lives as a ceding of their personhood. Some glory in the chance of rebellion.
All of these lives and choices have worth. And I hope, with all my heart, that they are centered around a freely made choice.
I just wish society recognized the choices of women. And saw us as full humans worthy and capable of making choices about our own lives.
Sometimes it is difficult for me to reconcile my feminist identity with that of me as a part of my family. Other times it's it nearly impossible to reconcile my upbringing with that of a woman (in the United States).
No matter the aspect of myself, or my actions and beliefs, there seems to be an incongruence. This touches every part of my life, but for most it is the idea that my identity as a person is not completely recognized, within society or even my family.
I imagine this is a recognition many people experience. Those of us who are in some way outside, be it because we're queer, or people of color, or disabled, and non-Christian or women. And rebelling against the established norms only exacerbates our lack or personhood and belonging.
So often society/politics/my family makes me feel incomplete. A not fully actualized version of a person. And oddly enough it is my upbringing that makes me able to recognize this incongruence.
I was brought up to be opinionated; and confident in my voice and experience and opinions. I was brought up to see myself as a being of worth, as a full and independent entity. And yet, as I age, that full and independent worth and identity is stripped from me.
Once upon a time I saw myself with children, even if I never had a partner. But as I've left my upper middle class upbringing, and as political and social spheres has turned more pro-fetus and anti-woman, I've experienced a great change in that regard. Now I know I'll never be willingly pregnant or a mother. And when I expressed that to my (mainly feminist) parents the question wasn't centered around what had made me change my mind, but what my male partner thought of this. As if my decisions about my body and life were incomplete without a man's opinion.
And I have a brother who goes to pro-life marches and studies to become a priest in the Catholic Church. And I have so many other family members who seeks to do right and help others but cannot conceive an existence of worth without it being one in line with their own views and beliefs.
And these views and beliefs are the ones that say I should be incomplete without offering up my body and life to motherhood. That my male partner is the primary actor in our partnership. That to be a true women I must be a mother. And that to be a mother I must sacrifice all for my children. And that my body, mind, and desires are secondary to that.
And so many of them cannot understand my virulent objection of these ideas.
They cannot understand that my primary objective to motherhood is that of being unwilling to sacrifice my personhood. Instead they convince themselves that it is about a lack of love and understanding of children (despite my decade of work with children).
I cannot conceive of being pregnant in a country where so many people prize the life and humanity of a pregnant person as secondary to the fetus they willingly (or unwillingly) carry. And that this is a devaluation of humanity that only effects pregnant people. No one else is expected to sacrifice their organs or living conditions for another person.
And I cannot conceive of being a parent, a mother, in a world that devalues mothers. Where father's are praised where mothers in the same situations are hated and mocked. Where women are hated for being working mothers, or for needing more than motherhood to experience a complete life.
I am a person, a human, first and foremost. And many aspects of my identity means that society seeks to take that personhood away from me. And I cannot imagine willingly ceding more of my personhood.
Some people must give up parts of their personhood to live the lives they want, and I cannot blame them for such. Certainly I have done the same in different areas. Some do not see these identities or lives as a ceding of their personhood. Some glory in the chance of rebellion.
All of these lives and choices have worth. And I hope, with all my heart, that they are centered around a freely made choice.
I just wish society recognized the choices of women. And saw us as full humans worthy and capable of making choices about our own lives.
Wednesday, 5 June 2013
Babe, Is this Sexist?
ARE YOUR FUCKING KIDDING ME!
Of course this is fucking sexist, as has been noted by other people. But seriously, how anyone could have missed the sexism (or not cared) and approved this image is beyond me.
Rosie the Riveter was a rallying cry for women to support the Nation during war time. It was about women entering the work force in new and necessary ways. It was about casting off old gender roles. It was about more women shouldering new responsibilities with pride and success.
To take all of that and turn it into some cheap knock off about cleaning (traditional women's work) is so fucking sexist and reductive and just a ridiculous understanding of signs and signifiers and art/history that I really cannot fucking believe it!
And please leave suggestions for topics for future posts in the Babe, is this Sexist? Series.
You can do so by leaving messages here or in the masterpost.
By tweeting us @FemArmRegime #babeisthissexist?
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Do Not Mistake My Calmness
By: Liberate Zealot
Content Warning: Mentions of rape, street harassment, and rape threats.
Don't mistake my projection of calmness for a lack of emotion.
I'm a woman, brought up not to rage.
Content Warning: Mentions of rape, street harassment, and rape threats.
Don't mistake my projection of calmness for a lack of emotion.
I'm a woman, brought up not to rage.
Monday, 20 May 2013
Please Sir, Tell Me More About How to Feminism
By: Liberate Zealot
Lady Feminists we all owe Charles Clymer of Equality for Women a big “Thank You”!
I especially like his telling women what words they can reclaim or not reclaim, almost as much as I like straight people telling me not to use the word queer.
Also he’s right, I should be exceedingly thankful for my period. After all it’s only 5 days a month (~900 days so far) of sometimes crippling pain and the hundreds of dollars of added expense for pads, tampons, pain medication, and stained underwear.
And it’s true, reminding male feminists/allies that they have male privilege is totes disrespectful.
And promoting classism and dismissiveness to women are surely the ways to do feminism right.
And If I was being sarcastic in this and actually have nothing but contempt for men like Charles Clymer, well I’m just one of those 1% feminists who has nothing better to do then foam at the mouth.
I especially like his telling women what words they can reclaim or not reclaim, almost as much as I like straight people telling me not to use the word queer.
Also he’s right, I should be exceedingly thankful for my period. After all it’s only 5 days a month (~900 days so far) of sometimes crippling pain and the hundreds of dollars of added expense for pads, tampons, pain medication, and stained underwear.
And it’s true, reminding male feminists/allies that they have male privilege is totes disrespectful.
And promoting classism and dismissiveness to women are surely the ways to do feminism right.
And If I was being sarcastic in this and actually have nothing but contempt for men like Charles Clymer, well I’m just one of those 1% feminists who has nothing better to do then foam at the mouth.
Plus I’m totally a misandrist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)