“The institution of marriage is not under attack as a result of the President’s words. Marriage was under attack years ago by men who viewed women as property and children as trophies of sexual prowess. Marriage is under attack by low wages, high incarceration, unfair tax policy, unemployment, and lack of education. Marriage is under attack by clergy who proclaim monogamy yet think nothing of stepping outside the bonds of marriage to have multiple affairs with “preaching groupies.”—
Rev. Otis Moss III, Senior Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ (via touchoftea)
“We let Willow cut her hair. When you have a little girl, it’s like how can you teach her that you’re in control of her body? If I teach her that I’m in charge of whether or not she can touch her hair, she’s going to replace me with some other man when she goes out in the world. She can’t cut my hair but that’s her hair. She has got to have command of her body. So when she goes out into the world, she’s going out with a command that it is hers. She is used to making those decisions herself. We try to keep giving them those decisions until they can hold the full weight of their lives.”—
(On why he let Willow cut all of her hair off)
Read more: Will Smith On Allowing Willow To Cut Her Hair: ‘She Has Got To Have Command Of Her Body’ | Necole Bitchie.com
- He raises a really great point. What would it mean to believe very early that my body was mine. That it’s not for anyone or for any particular purpose other than to be mine until I decide otherwise.
I love that sometimes I get to post positive things on here :) This is an instance where one issue of rape culture exists (the idea that people in general, women and children and people of color in specific, do not have the right to control their bodies, do not have ownership of their bodies, that their bodies exist to be controlled and owned by others be it parents, friends, romantic partners, or society at large) and someone is actively doing something to counteract that issue. I fucking love when that happens! I love it even more when it’s high profile like this!
“But most of all, stop thinking that what people so loathingly refer to as the “friendzone” is some sort of purgatory women put “nice guys” into. My friendship is not a crappy consolation prize that you’re left with if I deny you a sexual relationship– and my body is not your reward for good behavior.”—Taylor Callobre, The “Good Guy” Myth (via housewifeswag)
“The female experience is different from that of the male, and if, as a male writer, you cannot accept that basic premise, then you will never, ever, be able to write women well. A man walking alone through Midtown Manhattan at three in the morning may have concerns for his safety, but I promise you, it’s a very different experience for a woman taking the same walk, and it’s different again for a man wearing a dress. Think about it. That’s a societal factor, and it’s a gendered one, and this is not and can not be subject to debate. If you’re looking to argue that sexism is a thing of the past, that the world is gender-blind, you’re not only wrong, you’re lying to yourself.
After many years of deliberation, the Department of Justice has finally released final guidelines for implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act. According to the White House’s executive summary, the new rules include important specific protections for those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming:
The standards account in various ways for the particular vulnerabilities of inmates who are LGBTI or whose appearance or manner does not conform to traditional gender expectations. The standards require training in effective and professional communication with LGBTI and gender nonconforming inmates and require the screening process to consider whether the inmate is, or is perceived to be, LGBTI or gender nonconforming. The standards also require that post-incident reviews consider whether the incident was motivated by LGBTI identification, status, or perceived status.
This is a huge win for the health and safety of LGBT people, particularly people who are trans or gender non-conforming. In many prisons, standard practice has been to simply organize inmates by their anatomy, which often put trans inmates in very unsafe situations — in particular: trans women placed in men’s prisons. Trans women are thirteen times more likelythan others to be sexually assaulted while incarcerated. In addition, those unsafe situations were often rectified by placing the inmate in isolated lock-up, also an unfair circumstance targeting their identity. Under the new rules, individuals will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to provide the safest placements, and they’ll also have to be offered accommodations like separate showers for situations when they might be most vulnerable to assault.
It’s important to also note that the effect of these guidelines is to require training about working with LGBT people for all employees in the corrections system, from federal prisons to halfway houses to police lock-up. There will be mandatory audits and reporting to ensure the guidelines are being followed, with the potential for federal funding cuts if they are violated.
Unfortunately, the guidelines will not currently extend to other agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security, so immigration detention facilities will not immediately be covered. Those agencies will have 120 days to work with the Attorney General to propose their own rules. While there is little reason for them not to include the same protections, there is nothing that guarantees or requires that they do.
Because really, fuck your waves. Feminism could be so beautiful if fuckheads didn’t run it. But they do, and if you deny intersectionality, you only give a shit about your rights not those of people in different situations. Fuck me if I am an idealist, but I seriously want…
CONTENT WARNING: THE PIECE AT THE LINK DISCUSSES RACIST SEXUAL VIOLENCE.
The last time I wrote a critique of porn, some people left comments saying I had no business criticizing the stuff because “they liked it” and being sex positive meant that if you like something, it is not OK to challenge it. Ever since, I’ve been thinking a lot about those comments, specifically because of how they close the possibility of any kind of intersectional approach (namely, how our preferences and actions are informed by a conflagration of factors including, race, class, dis/ability, etc.). Well, I set to challenge that idea. From the piece:
If you point out that there are ingrained elements of racism within certain sub genres of pornography, to wit, some stuff that is presented as “fetish”, the usual defense, even from many in the sex positive feminist camp, is that “people like what they like” and, as long as it is consensual, we should not question it. This kind of determinism due to preference remains unexamined, unchallenged, as if our personal taste would develop in a vacuum, devoid of any other sociocultural influence. As if we could separate ourselves from the environment where we exist. I suspect this uncritical “we like what we like” argument stems from a need to anticipate the attacks based on moralistic arguments. I understand that anything that deviates from the heteronormative and patriarchal ideas of “acceptable” is criticized on tenuous arguments involving “values” and supposed “deviance”. However, “we might like what we like” and still, that supposedly personal preference might not be as simple or as harmless as we might want to believe. Kyriarchy, after all, infiltrates even the most seemingly disconnected areas of our lives.
“Male fantasies, male fantasies, is everything run by male fantasies? Up on a pedestal or down on your knees, it’s all a male fantasy: that you’re strong enough to take what they dish out, or else too weak to do anything about it. Even pretending you aren’t catering to male fantasies is a male fantasy: pretending you’re unseen, pretending you have a life of your own, that you can wash your feet and comb your hair unconscious of the ever-present watcher peering through the keyhole, peering through the keyhole in your own head, if nowhere else. You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman. You are your own voyeur.”—Margaret Atwood, The Robber Bride (via m-edders)
“Being a feminist doesn’t mean suddenly no longer liking problematic things. If you stopped liking everything that was sexist in media and entertainment there would be no media or entertainment left. Being a feminist, to me, is being aware of what it is you’re liking, and of its problematic aspects.”—
And again, while I agree, I find that we don’t extend this kind of understanding to other people. We say it for ourselves, because it’s true, but when other people enjoying something problematic that we don’t enjoy, there’s often condemnation. (The entire fight over New Girl ring any bells?)
So yes, yes—everything is problematic because the entire culture is. And no, people aren’t terrible for liking those problematic things, because then we’re all terrible. (And also no, not liking them and hoping they do badly will not magically give us less problematic things—only supporting the things that we find less problematic will do that.)
“To all the people who judge sex workers and say, as Tina Fey did, “We should all be better than that,” I ask: If you really cared about helping us, the poor and deluded sex workers of the world, why is your money not where your mouth is? Why haven’t you stood up and said to a sex worker, “Hey, I’ll pay your bills and pay your tuition at a university so you can get any degree you desire. I’ll help you.” I’ll tell you why you haven’t said it: Because you don’t care, you’re just looking for someone to judge. As I’m the only one who pays my bills and puts food on the table for myself and my family, I feel justified in giving you a hearty, “Fuck You!” while I’m on my way to work. I’m not afraid of your judgment and I’m not afraid to stand up for myself. I’m a sex worker for my own reasons, and not a single one of those reasons is you.”—Sex Worker Problems, SW7 (via slothgrrl)
“Some have a difficult time with feminism. “Why not a human liberation movement?” they say. The answer is that the power differences between the sexes, races and classes are still so extreme that invoking humanism, at this time, dangerously denies that fact. “Those in power always speak of humanism,” says Robin Morgan, “and accuse those who have been made powerless and categorized as ‘other’ of divisiveness. This is done, however, only when the powerless recognize and name their already divided state, and begin to articulate their longing — for union.
The fear is not that we are different. The fear is that we are the same.”
”—Loraine Hutchins and Lani Kaahumanu, Bi Any Other Name. (via gtfothinspo)
Yes, we may have honor killings and claims of witchcraftery but that does not mean our problems are “uncivilized” or ratchet compared to yours.
please do not talk to me about how much of a joke our nations are when you still haven’t elected a woman official into office(like Brasil or India) , or when a little boy can get murdered for walking while black and his murderer isn’t arrested for weeks.
Canadian sex work activist Wendy Babcock died in 2011 and her family would like you to believe that she made up stories about her early life and her abusive home. Click to read Morgan M. Page’s (of prettyqueer.com) response.
“I have a healthy range of fetishes, one of which is so unusual that I’ve never met anyone in ‘real life’ who shares it. Growing up with that sort of ‘dirty secret’ can be a lonely experience; but finding a whole sub-community of dedicated porn-makers who not only shared my kink, but actively celebrated it and acted out the same fantasies, helped me to realize I wasn’t some twisted freak. At least not for that reason. If porn can help kids realize that their urges are natural and healthy, that’s not a bad thing in my book.
The diversity of adult entertainment is so great that just talking about ‘porn’ as if it’s one big pink throbbing homogeneous mass is profoundly ignorant, whether its the subject of a campaign or a research question. For example, a paper by Michael Flood suggests “exposure to pornography helps to sustain young people’s adherence to sexist and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships,” but would we see the same impact from Maggie Mayhem’s feminist porn that we would from Playboy?
Lumping the two together is like trying to ask, “do video games make people violent,” without bothering to differentiate between the Grand Theft Auto series and Pacman. It undermines research, but more seriously it can lead people to tackle the wrong problem. It could well be true, for example, that the majority of porn reinforces misogynistic attitudes, and that this could damage young children as a result; but if that’s the case then the problem is misogyny, not pornography, and it needs to be tackled wherever it appears, not just in the adult entertainment industry.”—Porn panic! | Martin Robbins | The Lay Scientist | Science | guardian.co.uk (via blood-songs)