“Sending me triggering anal rape porn and death threats because you disagree with something said is immature, pathetic and disgusting. Seeing this coming from multiple people who don’t seem to be trolls and consider themselves feminists and good people is disgusting. If this continues I will post your accounts and link with warnings to the images you are sending. I’ve already reported you.”—
I have had anal sex maybe five or six times I would say and the first time I tried it, I was super excited. Every time I have done it, it was fun and intimate and sexy and felt really good. I am definitely interested in trying a lot of different things with sex, and so to me, anal was more of a thing on a list of “Things to Try In Bed.”
I do know that in recent times with the popularity of porn, and for various other reasons, anal sex has become more of a normal and expected thing to do in (cisgender heterosexual relationships). This would be exciting to me because like “Yay something not so vanilla is becoming normal!” however, I don’t feel it is necessarily progress because it is mostly shown in straight porn. And with the way things are now, misogyny and expectations of women in sex do not seem to be budging, so though my personal experiences with anal have been exciting good and fun, I think a lot of women feel expected to do it. Another thing I don’t like particularly about it is this double standard like, if you’ve tried it you’re a slut, if you haven’t you NEED to. :/
AND I don’t like it very much because vaginal penetration in this world is seen as another thing that you are supposed to and if it hurts well you keep doing it. And blowjobs are fun but can be uncomfortable but you have to do them. And anal is sometimes painful but there is pressure to do it. All of this while some men receive these things and never go down on their girlfriend. I think there are a lot of expectations on women to do a loooot of really uncomfortable things, and none for men really, so that would be another reason why I do feel there is a sort of unmerited pressure for women to try anal.
I apologize for any offense caused by the carelessness of my phrasing and post structure. As Sanfosaid: “When you frame your question within a wall of negative text, I think it’s pretty clear what your position is, and what kind of answers you’re expecting to receive.”
My aim was not and is not to shame anyone. I’m not sure what I can say to clarify any more. I’ve removed the original post. Feel free to keep posting the reblogs; I’m not hiding what I posted. I’d simply like to minimize the number of people triggered by the offensiveness of my post.
personally I don’t feel one way or another about anal sex, but I feel like the point of this post—which has been way, WAY lost in translation—is that there’s an increasing expectation for porn stars and ordinary women to engage in anal sex without a proper examination of 1) potential health risks (which, as usual, porn does not address) 2) why anal sex is now a porn norm (and how it’s becoming an expectation for women in non-porn situations).
utterly regardless of whether or not all women like anal or the OP likes anal, fact is that anal wasn’t always so popular in porn and many feminists associate the increasing inclusion of anal in porn with increasing boundary/taboo-pushing as porn became more widely acceptable and accessible (the time of those two occurrences is highly related). many also associate it with increasing normalization of rough sex in porn, so it’s not an issue the OP is just making up.
sex is social, and what we expect from sex is socially influenced. if women are pressured by their male partners to engage in anal sex—and their male partners are learning about anal from porn, which is an incredibly unrealistic portrayal of anal sex—and consenting to engage in anal sex without proper preparation or precaution and subsequently suffer serious consequences without being made aware that anal sex can be fun and safe and awesome for some people if they like it—it’s a feminist issue. no different, in my mind, than issues of consent between men and drunk women are feminist issues.
“Teen girls are not a separate species - they walk among us. They see and hear and read the same things we do, including all those features about sexting and raunch culture and under-age sex. They notice how those articles are always illustrated with photos of teenage bodies in tiny skirts or low-cut tops, the faces blurred or heads lopped off. They are aware of the way serious news sources and trash media alike use their bodies to sell papers even as they express deep concern about how girls are using those same bodies - their own - for pleasure.”—Emily Maguire: Sugar, spice and stronger stuff (via thesexmyth)
I already put this in tumblinfeminist’s ask box but I wanted to a) respond more in-depth (considering the ridiculous character limit) and b) respond publicly because I personally find this to be a really important topic - esp in light of the questions raised. This will be long, it will be graphic, and it will be as openly honest as I am capable of being so if you can’t handle that now would be a great time to stop reading.
Upon first reading the OP’s post I was honestly insulted and upset. It made me feel erased and attacked because I am a (cis)woman who likes anal sex. I don’t believe tumblinfeminist made me feel those things and I certainly don’t think she was purposefully trying to attack or erase anybody, but the intentions don’t change the effects. I felt erased and attacked because despite her well intended and mostly personal questions I have to deal with my personal sex life being questioned on a daily basis and it fucking sucks to have to defend something so personal. Not to mention that just as it is not the responsibility of people of color to explain racism to racists or to explain/defend their cultures to outsiders it is not my responsibility as a person who enjoys anal sex to explain/defend it to somebody who doesn’t understand and I really feel like that’s what tumblinfemnist was calling for. Once I got past all of that, though, I did want to respond because it’s true: anal sex (in fact all forms of sex) is/are feminist issue(s) and (as the title of this blog states) the personal is absolutely political.
So, I am a (cis)woman who likes anal sex. In fact, I fucking love it. I physically, emotionally, and mentally absolutely adore anal sex (all kinds) and I really wouldn’t want to have a sex life that didn’t include some sort of anal play (I even go back there when I masturbate sometimes). The first time I’d ever had anal sex was about 10 years into my relationship with my ex-husband. At the time he was actually the only person I’d ever had any kind of sex with and our sexual relationship was incredibly open. We talked about everything (even scary, taboo stuff), there was never any judgement, and there was always perfect respect. It took us a really long time to get to that point but having that sort of openness allowed us to experiment with things we wouldn’t have been comfortable exploring with other people. He wanted to start exploring anal play which is something I had ALWAYS (my entire life up to that point) been completely, 100% against in every possible way. I, like the OP, knew all about the potential risks, had heard all the horror stories, and was absolutely positive that it would hurt like hell and couldn’t possibly be pleasurable in any way. He understood that, respected my boundaries, and didn’t push.
But then, he didn’t just want to try anal play with me, he was interested in exploring it with himself too. And so we started exploring it, really educating ourselves on how it all works. We spent a good 6 months reading everything we could get our hands on about anal sex for men and women, we started playing a little bit with each other (fingers and tongues, no toys or penises) to see if it might actually be enjoyable or if we just didn’t like it and didn’t want to go any further. I am a germaphobe and really can’t handle the idea of anything involving the anus/rectum/colon and, again, my then husband was perfectly respectful and understanding. We purchased dental damns, finger cots, and condoms so that I would never have to actually touch anything with bare skin and could avoid germ contamination (though he had no such qualms and was personally fine with bare anal contact).
Over time we both discovered that we both really enjoyed anal play. There was more than just physical pleasure to it, there was an emotional/mental connection that we formed during all of this sharing and working together than I have never been able to match in any other situation in my life. After months of working up to it we finally had actual penis-anus penetrative sex and it was one of the most intimate experiences of my life. It wasn’t him getting me to do something he wanted, it wasn’t him doing something to me, there was no coercion, and both our needs and wants were paid attention to the entire time. The experience was something we shared with each other in equal parts and the connection was so intense and intimate that I honestly don’t have the words to describe it. Physically it was also pretty mind blowing: the orgasms were amazing, there was literally never any pain, and if it was ever uncomfortable for any reason we communicated with each other and dealt with it. We both knew it was definitely something we wanted to repeat and then we moved on to him - we bought a strap-on and did some pegging which was just as intimate and special as it had been when I had been on the receiving end.
After we split up I became involved in a relationship with another (cis)man and we also have anal sex. Our sexual relationship is understandably different than the one I shared with my ex-husband and so all the sex is, of course, different as well. With him the anal sex is more about pleasure and submission (on my part) and Dominance (on his part). I have always been a “bottom,” a “sub” and that wasn’t really something I got to explore with my ex as much as I would have liked because he was uncomfortable with being dominant and with “putting” me into a submissive position. I enjoy being able to explore the D/s relationship with my current partner and things are still very intimate. He is just as respectful of my wants/needs/boundaries as my last partner and there is plenty of communication so that if I am ever uncomfortable for any reason I know I can let him know and we will deal with it. Again, there is never any pressure or coercion involved and anal sex is always a shared experience, not something he does to me or gets me to do, etc. Beyond that I also occasionally spend my solo sex time on anal play. I have a butt plug (two, actually, one glass and one silicone) and a vibrator specifically for my anus. I really get off on having my anus stimulated during my sexual experiences and it often helps make my orgasms better than they could ever be without it.
TL;DR - It’s possible for (cis)women to enjoy penetrative anal sex physically, mentally, and emotionally. It’s possible for (cis)women to be equal partners in an anal sex situation who are not coerced or pressured into it. It is possible for (cis)women to have comfortable, pain free, pleasurable anal sex. While there are women who are coerced into anal sex, who are pressured into anal sex, who are brainwashed by a society that treats women as objects to be used for the enjoyment of others into believing that they should like anal sex and thus develop a false consciousness about the entire experience and it is possible for ANY sexual relationship to contain a power imbalance that makes it so that one partner is not respected and does not have hir needs/wants met or even respected BUT that is not the only way. When that happens it’s sad and it’s very very real but there are so many of us out there that really can have relationship without any of that, who can honestly, freely, and whole-heatedly enjoy anal sex without any of that and I would consider myself to be one of those people. If we’re going to have a conversation about it then everyone needs to be represented and respected.
Posting this instead of the ask box message. Your post totally deserves more than the silly, tiny character limit!
Mainstream American porn has really normalized anal sex and that’s what the problem is, it’s that many women are being pressured to take it whether they like it or not because of it’s become so normal even though many women don’t like it and never will. So yes you might like it but to expect other women to like it is the problem, so is how there’s little honest discussion about it because if a woman says she doesn’t like it and feels pressured she gets a response is sarcasm and “where’s the anal sex lobby” rather than actually listening to it.
Sex positivity means making sex positive for those who want it and accepting some people don’t not making everyone have every kind of sex whether they want it or enjoy it or not.
I argued that what was really being sold was men’s (presumably heterosexual) sexual subjectivity, the experience of being a person in the world who was presented with images that were for his titillation. Women do not live in the world this way. They are not exposed everyday to images that legitimize their lust; instead, the images teach women that they are the object of that lust.
Women viewing images of female nudes almost inevitably compared themselves to the figure and felt inadequate. Said one women:
“…the portrayal of these thin models and I just get depressed… I’m very hard on myself, wanting to be that way.”
Women ended up feeling bad whether the model conformed to conventional norms of attractiveness or not. When looking at a heavy set woman, they often responded like this:
“I am disgusted by it because she is fat, but I’m also… I need to lose about 10 pounds.”
“I don’t necessarily find her body that attractive… Her stomach looks like mine.”
Men, in contrast, clearly felt pandered to as holders of a heterosexual male gaze. They knew that the image was for them and offered praise (for a job well done) or criticism (for failure to live up to their expectations). About Crawford they said:
“Personally I think she is attractive.”
“I like that.”
Both men and women, then, knew exactly how to respond to female nudes: women had internalized their object status and men had internalized their subject status.
Are you really suggesting you wrote about it from an open-minded perspective? That’s not how it reads- you frequently repeated how much you just couldn’t understand how women make these decisions, and placed doubt on their intentions and ability to make informed decisions.
Nobody owes you an explanation for their behaviour. If someone likes an activity and engages in it consensually, what does it matter to you? Why are you placing yourself in a place to judge?
Firstly; I’ve removed your snarky mid post comment as it’s not appropriate or necessary. Now, on topic:
Absolutely. The reason I posted such a wall of text about why I don’t like or understand anal sex is to make it absolutely clear of my intentions- and that I have thought about why I don’t like it AND why I don’t understand. I wanted it to be very clear that I absolutely do not understand and the reasons why- and also that I very much want to understand. (Comparability to saying ’i dont like anal so no women do’)
I don’t doubt peoples preferences. If someone says they like something then who am I to say they don’t? Questioning the thought process behind a preference or anything along those lines is not questioning the reality of that persons choice- it’s trying to understand whats behind it when you can’t make the connections yourself. I don’t think I questioned anyones’ ablility to make their own choices. I questioned if raunch/porn culture or any other pressures may influence that choice. In many situations there are pressures, and in many I’m sure there aren’t- which is what I’d like to confirm from real people in real time instead of ask men or yahoo etc.
No one owes me anything. No one had to explain or defend themselves. Thats why I asked ‘for anyone who would like to share their stories, feelings and the like on the topic of anal sex- especially women who enjoy it.’ That is, anyone who would LIKE to share. I’m not demanding anything from anyone.
What other people do in their bedroom doesn’t matter to me, I’m not going to sit around and cry myself to sleep if two consenting adults are enjoying sexual activities, and I’m CERTAINLY not judging- as the post states MULTIPLE times. What I am is curious. As the post states I completely admit I can’t understand, but I want too. I have personal reasons for wanting to know- and I don’t owe that explanation to you, just as know one owes me an answer to my question.
It’s simply a sharing of my experiences, my concerns and a question for any keen to answer.
Thank you for the discussion, though I'm sorry people are starting to cut up and rearrange your OP!
Thank YOU for the discussion. It sucks when people reinterpret and change about your post only including selective quotes to make their point instead of taking the post for what it is.
The OP has been edited, and edits are listed at the bottom.
I always appreciate feedback and want to hear peoples concerns. I want to be sure I don’t say offensive things or phrase things inappropriately and I encourage people to always point out negative things when they see them!
I’m not sure how saying “I don’t like anal sex, this is my expereince, these are my reasons why and these are my concerns” and then asking to hear from people who don’t agree to educate myself and understand (as most resources on it are from unbiased pro gonzo porn groups, ask alive/askmen/yahoo answers- all of which are unreliable) is body or sexuality policing- specifically when I explicitly state I’ve got nothing against anal sex or those who do it as everyone should be free to live and love as they choose.
Having questions, concerns and preferences is not body or sexuality policing. Telling everyone what sex they should or shouldn’t be having is- which is something I NEVER DO and HAVE NOT DONE.
Seriously. Have any of you read the original post? The one that wasn’t edited/chopped/changed/rearranged and re-posted by an anti feminist guy? It’s great that you have opinions regarding the topic and I’d love to hear your concerns but please remember to always read the ORIGINAL post, not the butchered, censored and modified versions.
I like anal. The first time I tried it, it hurt momentarily, but that’s because I hadn’t had fingers or toys in there for a while. With lube and condoms, it was really good, and I experience a totally different kind of pleasure with it, mixed with clitoral stimulation. For me, clitoral + anal stimulation is the most intense out of anything I’ve tried before (and that’s a lot, so). I was never pressured into it, and as a matter of fact I asked my partner if he would do that with me, and he was kind and patient and curious, so he agreed to.
Anal sex doesn’t have to always include a penis. It can be with toys, or a finger, or a strap-on, too. It doesn’t have to be a sign of submission via male lust. That’s a heteronormative thought. And what if it is lusty and with a penis? As long as the people are consenting adults, does it matter? When someone finds pleasure in something, should that someone embrace it?
I’m a hardcore feminist, and I don’t see how anal is demeaning at all for women. If you’re a woman, own your sexuality, own your pleasure, do whatever you want. What works for some, doesn’t work for others. I personally don’t like receiving oral sex (but I like giving it). It’s just about personal preference. The beauty of feminism is creating options, not a single way of life.
"…Interestingly, the exact same situation arises when women appear in the public sphere wearing very revealing, highly “sexy” clothing and presenting themselves in an overtly sexual manner. It should be perfectly obvious that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any individual woman choosing to do this. It is every woman’s right to dress in the way she chooses, and if she wants to go out with her breasts or thighs or any other “socially-coded sexual” part of her body uncovered, that is a valid choice. It certainly does not reflect any personal issues or “deep seated insecurities” or any other armchair psychologist bullshit. Some women feel comfortable dressing up really sexily in public, and there is nothing microproblematic about this choice. No woman’s individual choice to wear a bikini or sexy lingerie out in public at any time of day in any location should ever, ever be up for debate or scrutiny from anyone.
Yet again, on a sociocultural level, it clearly is problematic that women are consistently presented in all forms of media in an overtly heterosexy way, wearing very revealing clothing and posed in such a manner as to bring pleasure to heterosexual men. Men are almost never presented posing sexily to gratify heterosexual women (and when they are, panic and confusion ensue!). Consider this: there is no male equivalent of lingerie in mainstream culture. Furthermore, merely in observing the dearth of so-called “unattractive” or “unsexy” women in media, women are implicitly taught that their primary value is their capacity to provide a pleasing image and/or sexual gratification to heterosexual men whether they like it or not. They are of course also slutshamed if they provide sexual gratification to men and/or like it! (In misogynistic societies, women can never win.) The depiction of women as being heteromale lust objects before they are people is a symptom of deep misogyny in our culture. It is one reason why many American girls self-report that they would rather win ANTM than a Nobel Prize and nobody even asked American boys that question. It is highly macroproblematic. However, sexy women are not at all microproblematic, and nobody has the right to interrogate or judge any woman who chooses to present sexily.”
A well written piece by Connie from the Social Justice League on her experiences studying law in Australia and dealing with rape culture, barristers and advocates that support slut-shaming and victim-blaming as ways of conducting rape and sexual assault cases, and how they justify playing on prejudices to win cases instead of fighting for true justice.
I highly recommend reading the full peice; here are some excerpts:
"The argument I most commonly run against is: that, in absence of evidence beyond conflicting testimonies, lawyers need to use whatever favorable “evidence” they can find, because they have a duty to do their best to win the case for their client."
Call me old fashioned or just a fresh-faced graduate from law school, but I thought lawyers were supposed to be officers of the court first.
"Lawyers [are not] required to do everything possible to win a case. In fact many things are explicitly forbidden because they conflict with a lawyer’s duty to the court. For example, lawyers cannot knowingly allow someone to present false evidence or delay proceedings as a tactic. Lawyers should cease acting for clients who insist on presenting false evidence. From there, even if it isn’t explicitly stated in the Professional Conduct rules, I’d say that it’s necessary to imply a “Don’t reinforce the prejudices of the jurors” in the interests of justice.”
What is so difficult for some cismen to grasp about, “All men are potential rapists”? I mean, maybe I kinda get it? Theoretically, it really could (should?) read, “Everyone is a potential rapist.”
However, considering that 99% of rapists are men, doesn’t it make sense that as males (or those of us read as males) we should just shut the frak up, check our privilege and realize that our “cool guy advances” might not be seen that way by an individual who is categorically oppressed enough (99%, cool guy!) to feel unsafe or uncertain?
Honestly, it’s like sending a person into a kennel full of dogs and saying, “Watch the frak out, 99% of the ones that bite are dogs — but there’s no real way of telling which ones do that. And not all dogs do that. And sometimes the biters are nice! And sweet! And buy you coffee at first! Also, there’s a one in three chance you’ll be bitten. Have fun playing with them!”
”“Now get up and approach again,” he shouted. Maricela stood, but couldn’t move. She was frozen. Her supervisor’s voice got louder, his tone more enraged: “Do you think I have all day? Drop and give me another twenty.” She did. This time the tears fell out of her eyes, splashing on the floor below…. Maricela wouldn’t attempt to tell anyone else about her rape for eight years.”
"There was something incongruous about hearing these statistics and experiences discussed in calm and official tones in a pompous room, when we’re really talking about women being assaulted, their uniforms ripped, their underwear filled with blood, their faces smeared with dirt and tears. We’re talking about violence characterized by anger, humiliation, and bodily fluids. We’re talking about the moments when women become unrecognizable to themselves, when their sense of safety is obliterated, when their lives are forever changed."
In Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy, she proposes that patriarchal structures began precisely because of the power that women held in controlling the flow of population. Having more people meant having more workers, and so tribes started to traffic, trade, and capture women as a means of accumulating power. So a shortage of women would indeed become a huge issue-- the film Children of Men looks at this a little bit from the POV of a society in which everyone is infertile.
Can you explain the concern or fact that the 'End of History and the Last Woman' is trying to express?
The original post is HERE. There are many issues. A few in short for those who don’t want to real the whole post:
1. Less opportunities for women and for equal rights
2. Sub-replacement fertility / loss of economic and social growth
3. Crime and unrest increases in areas with more men than women
4. Men in wealthier countries “poach” women from poor ones
Men end up “buying” or bidding for eligible women
More women are forced into prostitution or marriage
The buying / selling / marrying / rape of young women and female children
5. Homosexual women, those who coose not to have sex and discrimination
1. From a sociologists perspective, women are already considered a minority “subordinate” group due to their status world wide compared to that of males. (the more dominant group, men, would be the majority group because men have “greater power, privileges and social status.”) If the numbers of females born compared to that of males continues to drop this will further segregate women, making their voices smaller and fewer. Women who have an education are also less likely to have children or marry at all- and if they do they do so later. This could be seen as a threat for the men who want to buy and sell women and so they may try and stop women from recieving a well rounded education and being independant.
2. Less women also means less children of either gender to help an aging population. Countries who have growing populations have increased life expectancy, growth of wealth and human development. Without those things women in poorer countries will only become poorer and more segregated.
3. Gender bias can broadly impact a society, and it is estimated that by 2020 there could be more than 35 million young “surplus males” in China and 25 million in India. Evidence exists for a link between sex ratios and violence. In a society with an artificial shortage of women, a combination of surplus of males and increased upward mobility of females results in accumulation of unmarried, lower-class males, who tend to be violence-prone. In the recent decades both in China and in India, regions with highest sex-selection rates experienced crime waves. A steep rise in rapes due to complete unavaliablity or options relating to sex and marriage for men- especially in countries where rape isn’t treated as a crime but as ‘destruction of a fathers property’, or in countries that condone honour killings, or punish rape victims is a horrid thought.
4. Shortage of females also has the effect of driving human trafficking and mail-order bride phenomena. There are reports of women from Vietnam, Myanmar, and North Korea systematically trafficked to mainland China and Taiwan and sold into forced marriages. If these needs even with slavery can not be met in the countries themselves they may continue and take international sex slavery to a new level. Countries like Russia are considered to have a suprlus of females, as well as a bad reputation for sex trafficking and slavery of the lowe class. Many countries that have a ‘daughter defieciet’ are countries which still have forced/arracnged marriages and where loved daughters are still bartered away. If the ‘value’ of a female was to rise very substancially due to a shortage it is highly unlikely that this practice will end- forcing women to continue to be bought, sold and traded.
It is becoming more common in CHina that if a man cannot find a woman to marry in his peer group, perhaps he will find greater opportunity to marry a girl of a younger generation. It is not ucommon for a man to be up to 35 years older than his bride. When you take into account sex slavery and how popular ‘mail order brides’ are, this is very worrying. Many countries have very low ages for women to be able to be married and to be legally obligated to have sex with thier husbands. With such shortages this is unlikley to change.
5. In many of the countries listed, homosexuality is a crime or is looked down upon. If there is a shortage of woman and it’s a womens ‘job’ to her country to produce children and marry, homosexual discrimination for lesbians can only rise. They will be resented for being selfish, criminal and not helping their country. I honestly forsee violence against lesbians increasing, as well as the amount of ‘corrective rape’. I beleive this will also apply to women who choose not to have sex, give birth or marry. Again, this may play into women not being given an education, health care and equal rights so that way they can not be independant and make those choices for themselves. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations
“Realize that anyone who tries to put you down about your appearance is assuming that it is your job to please them visually. Once you realize that it isn’t your job to be visually pleasing to anyone, ever, it becomes very hard for anyone to make you feel bad about yourself.”—Skeptifem (in this interview: http://teenskepchick.org/2011/07/14/teen-skepchick-interviews-skeptifem/ )
I don’t know that I completely agree with this article, but the author makes some good, valid points. Some quoteworthy parts:
“The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women.”
“Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men.”
10 MAY 2011
Firstly; this is only taking into account the western world. I’m not going to go discussion of this for non first world countries or POC.
Secondly: There is a big difference between money and shoes. One is used to buy the other. One provides status, safety, security and of course wealth. The other is an adornment, clothing. The fact that women don’t earn as much as men in a CAPITALIST SOCIETY where MONEY IS POWER shows that men are dominant and that there is an unequal power balance. Money means access to education, power, health, connections and luxury. Shoes can not provide these things. Now if I could buy groceries, an education, health insurance and a car among other things with shoes the argument would stand… maybe. But they can’t. It is a ridiculous and insulting comparison.
Thirdly; the above point says most of what needs to be said. what the OP wrote is something to keep women complacent. The statement he makes ignores again anything but 1st world white countries. The point he makes also disproves itself.
It states that in fact: men DO have the power/wealth/prestige but it’s ok because they only do it on womens behalf: to impress us. Not all of us WANT to be impressed, gifted with money or kept as trophies. Not all of us even like men! “Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to” is BULLSHIT. Women don’t control these resources because men do- and want to keep it (and women) for themselves. Proof: The ENTIRETY of human history where men have controlled, dominated and owned women.
I call bullshit Sir. You want to impress me? Stop the patriarchal and privileged denying bullshit and let me get paid my fair share for work I can do as well or better than you. Stop insulting my intelligence and that of all women while you are at it.
One of my earliest posts and one of my favorites. Unfortunately the topic is now relevant to twitter conversion once more.
I cannot explain the magnitude of the disgust I feel for all of the men she’s suing, her boss and the entire culture of the firm. My heart goes out to this woman. Let me be clear, this is not just her problem; this is a systematic injustice about how women and their bodies are thought of and treated. This is not ok. This is the enemy.
Rape, argue my disbelieving correspondents, happens in a world full of people. You’ll never stop all rape from happening, they tell me. Maybe not. Maybe that classmate would have raped Jane even if we didn’t live in a rape culture.
But he wouldn’t have been allowed to rape her again.
It is as though mainstream feminism has a ‘blind spot’ when it comes to religion, but it is not alone in this. Religion has managed to carve itself a very nice niche in society whereby any questioning of religious faith is seen to be extremely bad form. Religion seems to have a monopoly on hurt feelings, entirely unfairly in my opinion. It seems to me that some feminists are afraid of a critical discussion about religious faith, because of the ever-looming label of ‘intolerant’, ‘prejudiced’, or, when it comes to any religion besides Christianity, ‘racist’. When in fact, there is a big difference between questioning an idea (in this case: faith in the existence of a specific supernatural entity in spite of a complete lack of evidence) and hating a person or group of people. Saying that critics of religion are prejudiced is as moronic as calling feminists ‘man-haters’.
“Black feminist criticism would by definition be highly innovative, embodying the daring spirit of the works themselves. The Black feminist critic would be constantly aware of the political implications of her work and would assert the connections between it and the political situation of all Black women. Logically developed, Black feminist criticism would owe its existence to a Black feminist movement while at the same time contributing ideas that women in the movement could use.”—Barbara Smith, “Toward a Black Feminist Criticism” (1977), Reprinted in All the Women are White, All the Blacks are Men, But Some of Us are Brave (via agradschoolbreakup)
Social Justice League: Fauxgress Watch: "Gentlemen Prefer Curves"
If we want to end cultural pressure on women to make their bodies conform to an ideal, we need to reject – not embrace – the idea that “men prefer curvy women” or “men like women to have some curves”. I know it’s tempting for those of us whose natural body shape puts us outside the sociocultural beauty ideal to try to latch onto this idea to regain some confidence. I also understand wanting to propagate a message that subverts dominant beauty standards, and because it attempts to do that, this message is not as harmful as a message that says the opposite. Nevertheless, a cursory analysis of this message reveals that it is not really progress. It does not promote genuine freedom from misogyny and beautyism.
First, by invoking male approval to validate a certain female body type, this message reinforces the idea that men’s approval of women’s bodies is the most relevant and important yardstick by which the quality our bodies should be measured. In this framework, women are seen to be valuable largely (or indeed only) to the extent that they are enjoyed by men. This idea is implicitly invoked whenever men’s approval is deemed the most suitable basis on which women are invited to build their self esteem. Obviously, this idea is deeply misogynistic and seriously heterosexist. It’s also damaging on a psychological level for individual women to base their self worth on the extent to which they please men…