24 4 / 2014

jacquelinehoman:

Without Apology, pp. 33, Jacqueline S. Homan, copyright 2013. All rights reserved

jacquelinehoman:

Without Apology, pp. 33, Jacqueline S. Homan, copyright 2013. All rights reserved

(via yoursocialconstructsareshowing)

24 4 / 2014

"Feminism which likes to police women’s behaviour and coerce them into lesbianism… It was because of the dominance of this feminism – in conjunction with general societal monosexual supremacy – that I still sometimes find myself saying I am a lesbian rather than being truthful about who and how I love. The expectation of this kind of feminism is that we should pack away a part of ourselves, stick it into a locked box and bury it under six feet of concrete, rather than living and loving to the fullest extent possible."

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/smugsexual-and-the-closet-two-faces-of-feminist-biphobia/

Unbelievably, this was not written by an MRE (men’s rights extremist).  Even though you would have thought they would be the only people paranoid enough to think of any feminists as a lesbian coercion squad.

But seriously though: if ‘monosexual’ includes lesbians (which clearly it does and about whom the author of this blog doesn’t think much) then this little, widely ‘liked’ snippet, is actually positing that lesbians, as lesbians, have some share of societal supremacy.  For being lesbians.  Not for being cis, which many of us are, or for being white, which some of us also are, or for being rich, which a few of us also are… but for being sexually and/ or romantically interested in women but not in men.  For being lesbians.  

That makes sense, given patriarchy (it really doesn’t).

It would only make sense if ‘feminism which likes to coerce women into lesbianism’ really were ‘dominant’, which no feminism is (or it would be confusing that feminism existed).

And finally: can ‘living and loving to the fullest extent possible’ not be done as a lesbian?  Do you really have to love men (sexually and romantically) to love fully?

That sounds like a more familiar form of coercion somehow…  Yep, it’s patriarchal (and what I like to call ‘androsexist’).

24 4 / 2014

jesusrox10:

lonely—mountain:

ridiculousinpiccadilly:

gallifrey-feels:

lizrrd-queen:

satanslittlebuttercup:

*nearby lesbian laughter*

*muffled asexual snickering*

*conflicted pansexual noises*

*moderately panicked bisexual muttering*

HETEROSEXUAL SCREAMING IN ANGUISH

*Catholic dancing*

jesusrox10:

lonely—mountain:

ridiculousinpiccadilly:

gallifrey-feels:

lizrrd-queen:

satanslittlebuttercup:

*nearby lesbian laughter*

*muffled asexual snickering*

*conflicted pansexual noises*

*moderately panicked bisexual muttering*

HETEROSEXUAL SCREAMING IN ANGUISH

*Catholic dancing*

(via kuunakullanvalkeana)

23 4 / 2014

The problem is with the whole ‘woman’ thing.

This is one of feminism’s foundational insights: that it would be impossible for a human to properly ‘identify’ with a category like woman, because it’s not a category defined as properly human, more like a one-dimensional sub-type. The one dimension of that sub-type is very often ‘reproduction’. That’s what women are ‘for’. Not just biological reproduction, but also the daily maintenance of the species through housework and whatever else ‘the species’ is said to need, like sex or eye candy. Except for ‘species’, largely read ‘men’.

Very few feminists would disagree on that. So if ‘cis’ were defined to mean ‘identifies with the gender assigned at birth’ and ‘identifies’ were defined to mean ‘comfortable with’, I can see why lots of feminists and women generally would take issue with it. ..

18 4 / 2014

I only realised how much I used to count on my ‘femme privilege’, a privilege I grew to increasingly hate as I grew more and more feminist and recognised it for what it was — license to manipulate ‘benevolent’ sexism — when I realised I could no longer do that: when someone described me as butch.  Somehow, despite my unshaved armpits and shaved head, I’d managed not to identify myself as the kind of person other people would identify as anything other than really actually quite feminine.  I used to laugh when I started getting mistaken for a boy, thinking ‘but I’m wearing make up.  And jewellery‘.  I’m also tall and flat chested though, so suddenly my thinness had become masculine, not sylphlike or willowy (two adjectives I had grown weirdly accustomed to).  Now, I couldn’t redeem myself for patriarchy by ‘turning on the submissive feminine charm’ if I ever stepped out of line (most recently by shouting at a sexist, assaulty man in a pub), which is scary and not something I had counted on when yearning for patriarchy to view me as a threat,or hoping to one day think ‘meh’ of men’s approval.  Because men’s approval makes a lot of difference and realising that their masculinity is no longer invested in protecting me (often from the kind of women who look like me as well as other men, and usually along racist and classist lines) is disconcerting.  I feel vulnerable.  I’ve already waxed my armpits.  They’re no longer a fuck you to the male gaze.  But anything that isn’t a fuck you feels like a carte blanche.  Which is also scary.  Hence why it was a shitty bargain, albeit a minuscule one.  But hence also why access to shitty bargains is most definitely a privilege: if it was the colour of my skin that was making me feel unsafe, there’s basically nothing I could do about that.  And even if my sense of safety as a skinny white femme was largely delusional (as all good feminists know, the men I imagined with varying degrees of consciousness as my protectors would probably be the most likely to attack me, because ‘most perpetrators of violence against women are known to the victim/ survivor’, as the saying goes), it’s still nicer to feel safe than constantly under threat.

18 4 / 2014

"Sex is just sex. It should not be taboo. And yet at some point, feminists need to ask themselves, ‘why are things still so fucked up? Why are women considered less human than men?’ It’s not random. It’s to do with power and it’s to do with bodies. It’s to do with fundamental beliefs about what women are for and pornography and sex work feed into this."

17 4 / 2014

17 4 / 2014

"As many as 90% of women in prison for killing a man were battered by those men, and whereas men are sentenced 2-6 years on average for killing their intimate partners, women are sentenced on average 15 years for killing their partners."

16 4 / 2014

"Just because your pain is understandable, doesn’t mean your behavior is acceptable."

Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience (via paintdeath)

(Source: quotes-shape-us, via classymorelikekhaleesi)

15 4 / 2014

"It seems to me that making a false accusation of rape is considered far, far worse than committing an actual rape. I don’t just mean this in terms of the impact on the victim, but in terms of how people view the motivations and culpability of the guilty party. Rape is still considered an opportunistic crime, something that can happen almost by accident when a woman happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That rape culture exists – and that rapists spend years absorbing the idea that they are entitled to rape – is something a great many people still refuse to accept. By contrast, making false accusations is invariably presented as calculated and malicious. It’s something a false accuser could control, if she really wanted to. Unlike the rapist, the false accuser is not destined to commit a crime; she must have been enabled by a legal system which allowed her to get away with it (usually by granting anonymity). And so it is suggested by the likes of Hodges that we can’t stop rape – sorry, potential victims! – but that we can work on stamping out false accusations. We can’t control the impulsive, violent behaviour of (mostly) men but we can control the malicious behaviour of (mostly) women. Funny, that."